澳紐恢復得咁慢係因航唔夠人定真係少咗人旅行探親
[航空]連登飛機膠討論區100
網上行用戶
1001 回覆
8 Like
0 Dislike
DRW啲所謂中國港口執哂未
澳紐恢復得咁慢係因航唔夠人定真係少咗人旅行探親
澳紐恢復得咁慢係因航唔夠人定真係少咗人旅行探親
支那外勞講普通話
以前東海有開 深圳達爾文 2000蚊有找來回直飛澳洲
A350-900飛墨爾本，ECON買咩位坐好好想可以躺平，廁所坐面？
好想可以躺平，廁所坐面？你噏乜
坐econ又想flat bed
坐廁所對面最多咪仲直隻腳
你都係瞓唔平
坐econ又想flat bed
坐廁所對面最多咪仲直隻腳
你都係瞓唔平
想可以躺斜d，唔想影響到人
國泰個321neo基本上係亞洲國際線機入面最垃圾，菲律賓都靚過佢，星宇賣網紅都係賣service、賣情懷，個cabin 不過不失的
AA transcon J都係flatbed，Collins diamond ，而家亞洲差唔多個個Narrowbody 都係佢
一係廁所/門前面
一係坐最後
一係坐最後
thanks
KC 直程A321LR係旗艦機型
GF SQ narrow body全部都可以lie flat
GF SQ narrow body全部都可以lie flat
啲轉機客比SQ搶鳩晒
Y 公認係30-31 但J個pitch連AeroLOPA Runway girl Executive traveller Seatguru Simple flying呢啲都揾唔到
GE90推力高用油量大過其他引擎
好多航空公司都有用黎飛下中短線 e.g. 泰航 Qatar Emirates
叫譚條下次拎把尺度吓
再講就整Intra Europe business class
咁同一款機（一樣阻力）同一條航線，應該要用同一個推力去比較先啱
所以比sfc（specific fuel consumption ，亦即係相同推定下會用幾多油嘅比較）會準確
好可惜呢個數基本上係機密，做咗多少少research：
(1)
維基https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_800#Specifications_(Trent_800)
GE90-76B/-85B: 0.545 lb/lbf/h or
GE90-85B: 0.520 lb/lbf/h
Trent 800: 0.575 lb/lbf/h
（數字越低越好）
(2)
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=768665
正常bypass ratio 越高效率就越高，不過115B bypass ratio 9，94B 8.4-9，唔知點解個comment 會話94B效率高啲，呢個存疑
佢下一個comment 話 GE90-94B sfc: 0.56 ，比Trent 800好
(3)
同CF6 比較https://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2011/09/ge-widebody-engine-sfc-comparison.html
GEnx-1B vs. CF6-80C2B6F (B767-300ER) and GE90-94B (B777-200ER): GEnx-1B 15.4% better than CF6-80 and 6.9% better than GE90-94B
-94B=CF6*1.069/1.154= CR6*0.926
GP7000 vs. CF6-80 and GE90-115B: GP7000 (A380) 11-13% better than CF6-80 (different engine versions and A/C applications) and 4% better than GE90-115B
-115B=CF6*1.04/1.13 TO 1.04/1.11= CF6*0.920 to 0.936
冇definitive comclusion，11-13% better 令94B 可以好過又可以差過115B
(4)
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=533291
個comment 張相：
就直接講明 -115B sfc 好過-94B 少少，而佢嘅數大致同3係match 嘅
(5)
Overall pressure ratio愈高正常就會愈高效率
Trent 800: 33.9-40.7:1
GE90-115B: 42
同(2)嘅bypass ratio，又係正常愈高愈有效率
Trent 800: 6.4
GE90-115B: 9
因為(1)同(2)睇到GE90-94B 好過Trent 800，而(4)又睇到GE90-115B 又應該好過GE90-94B，再考慮埋(5)，sfc 睇，都ok肯定GE90-115B嘅sfc唔會差過Trent 884先
所以比sfc（specific fuel consumption ，亦即係相同推定下會用幾多油嘅比較）會準確
好可惜呢個數基本上係機密，做咗多少少research：
(1)
維基https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_800#Specifications_(Trent_800)
GE90-76B/-85B: 0.545 lb/lbf/h or
GE90-85B: 0.520 lb/lbf/h
Trent 800: 0.575 lb/lbf/h
（數字越低越好）
(2)
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=768665
True at the introduction of the GE90. The -115B is slightly worse than the -94B as it has a lower bypass ratio.
正常bypass ratio 越高效率就越高，不過115B bypass ratio 9，94B 8.4-9，唔知點解個comment 會話94B效率高啲，呢個存疑
佢下一個comment 話 GE90-94B sfc: 0.56 ，比Trent 800好
(3)
同CF6 比較https://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2011/09/ge-widebody-engine-sfc-comparison.html
GEnx-1B vs. CF6-80C2B6F (B767-300ER) and GE90-94B (B777-200ER): GEnx-1B 15.4% better than CF6-80 and 6.9% better than GE90-94B
-94B=CF6*1.069/1.154= CR6*0.926
GP7000 vs. CF6-80 and GE90-115B: GP7000 (A380) 11-13% better than CF6-80 (different engine versions and A/C applications) and 4% better than GE90-115B
-115B=CF6*1.04/1.13 TO 1.04/1.11= CF6*0.920 to 0.936
冇definitive comclusion，11-13% better 令94B 可以好過又可以差過115B
(4)
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=533291
個comment 張相：
就直接講明 -115B sfc 好過-94B 少少，而佢嘅數大致同3係match 嘅
(5)
Overall pressure ratio愈高正常就會愈高效率
Trent 800: 33.9-40.7:1
GE90-115B: 42
同(2)嘅bypass ratio，又係正常愈高愈有效率
Trent 800: 6.4
GE90-115B: 9
因為(1)同(2)睇到GE90-94B 好過Trent 800，而(4)又睇到GE90-115B 又應該好過GE90-94B，再考慮埋(5)，sfc 睇，都ok肯定GE90-115B嘅sfc唔會差過Trent 884先