Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Offer Higher-performance A330-200  
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19832 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...vier-a330-against-delayed-787.html

I guess this will translate into even more A330 sales!  thumbsup 


Exceptions confirm the rule.
94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGorgos From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19710 times:

The gap in range which the 787-8 will have in reality compared to the design goals claimed by Airbus is amazing. Wonder how much of this will be true, and how those numbers change after the first batch of 20 aircrafts they talk about.

Anyway, great news for the a330! while they are at it, re-engine the dang thing and slap some new wings on it!


User currently onlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 897 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19603 times:

Would this MTOW increase also apply to the A330-200F, the A330-300 and the KC-45A?

The resulting range increase seems rather limited: only 90 NM (from 6,750 NM to 6,840 NM). I presume part of the benefits of the MTOW increase must go into higher payload capacity, which may require a higher OEW.

It's also interesting to read Airbus' assessment of the performance of early-build 787s:

- 2% above target fuel burn
- "tons" of extra OEW
- range of 6,720 NM


User currently onlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 897 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19552 times:

One additional tought: the engine SFC improvements that are in the pipeline for the A330 should increase the range even further. The 7,000 NM seems to be coming within reach.

User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19506 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):

It's also interesting to read Airbus' assessment of the performance of early-build 787s:

- 2% above target fuel burn
- "tons" of extra OEW
- range of 6,720 NM

That's a lot of extra baggage to carry around (no pun intended), but Boeing and their first 787 customers are all aware of the lack of performance of the first batch of 787s, and are thus getting compensated. You also bring up a good point right here:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
I presume part of the benefits of the MTOW increase must go into higher payload capacity, which may require a higher OEW.

I think the only way to increase payload would be to increase the OEW. But since the A332 already had higher payload potential than the 787, why didn't Airbus choose to close the range gap to around 7,200nm or so?? Just one more thing, it's still quite impressive how much potential the A330 airframe packs when you considered it came off the drawing boards really in the late 80's and yet, it's still on the most viable options for the airlines 2 decades later.

[Edited 2008-09-09 13:30:56]


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19380 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
The resulting range increase seems rather limited: only 90 NM (from 6,750 NM to 6,840 NM)

That doesn't seem that impressive  no  When I read the title of the thread, I was expecting something more spectacular, a sort of A330-200X with new materials, lighter weight, improved engines, something that could really compete with the 787-8 - and not with the first 20 deliveries only.

It's a nice development, but nothing more than just the incremental improvements which one can expect during the life cycle of a particular model. Smart spin from Airbus, maximising the advantage it has from the current problems Boeing has getting the 787 into the air.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5474 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19241 times:

Will the A330-300 also get the MTOW bump? The article doesn't say anything about it.

90 nm, as little as it is, might be helpful to a number of A330-300 operators. The airplane is payload-limited on a whole lot of routes.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7615 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19149 times:

Any incremental advance is welcome.

However, if you CAN order an A330 now for delivery in 2010, then that is something that you can not do for the B787.

Besides, I understand that the early B787 will not have the performance of later aircraft.

It also bridges the gap until the first A350XWB in 2013.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9109 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19113 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
Would this MTOW increase also apply to the A330-200F, the A330-300 and the KC-45A?

I would think so, also I would think it would be able to be applied to existing fleets, which may defer some airlines from renewing fleets sooner. Similar to what I think Boeing is aiming at with the 777-300ERX.

Airbus has a history of being able to get these sort of improvements into existing fleets.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
The resulting range increase seems rather limited: only 90 NM (from 6,750 NM to 6,840 NM). I presume part of the benefits of the MTOW increase must go into higher payload capacity, which may require a higher OEW.

That is only at one point, I would expect the range at max payload to be increased by 300-400nm, no doubt will will see an update to this :

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/fleet%20planning/589a6d2d.png

Depends on the stage length, most sector lengths I see for these aircraft will not be over 6000 nm, I see them being more used on stage lengths under 5000 nm.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
It's also interesting to read Airbus' assessment of the performance of early-build 787s:

- 2% above target fuel burn
- "tons" of extra OEW
- range of 6,720 NM

I remember reading at one stage that ANA was reported to have said the 788 was 5,800 lb overweight, also recall Steven Udvar-Hazy said the 787-9 was around 14,000 lb overweight.

This is not uncommon in the first few frames, manufacturing processes are yet to refined, and they tend to be overbuilt. I don't expect the A350 to be immune from this phenomena either.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10039 posts, RR: 96
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19057 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
The resulting range increase seems rather limited: only 90 NM (from 6,750 NM to 6,840 NM).

To be honest, a mere 1 tonne of extra fuel should take an A330-200 some 80Nm further, so I would hazard a guess that the quoted range also implies a higher payload.

As far as the range they quote for the 787-8 goes, the OEW quoted in Boeings ACAP document, (only 2.5 tonnes less than the A330-200), should indeed result in only a small range gap at like payloads, if the MTOW is only 219 tonnes (vs 233 for the current A330), as it would be carrying some 10%-12% less fuel.

Someone posted a while back, a rumour that the 787-8's MTOW had been increased to 227 tonnes in order to restore the range/payload, but I've see no corroboration.

Rgds


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 18849 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
Would this MTOW increase also apply to the A330-200F, the A330-300 and the KC-45A?

Let's hope so. But the article says "will increase maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) for the passenger airliner by 5t".

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
That is only at one point, I would expect the range at max payload to be increased by 300-400nm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
so I would hazard a guess that the quoted range also implies a higher payload.

But the payload Airbus is usually quoting the range for is 253 pax + their bags (for the A332 that is). I fail to see why the range increase should imply a higher payload. IMO we need more clarification about this. But I'd love to be proven wrong on this one!



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently onlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 897 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 18826 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
Would this MTOW increase also apply to the A330-200F, the A330-300 and the KC-45A?

I would think so

Using a 238t MTOW A330-200F as the basis for the KC-45A should yield a significantly more capable tanker/transporter than the version that won the last round. The goalpost is shifting for Boeing.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
To be honest, a mere 1 tonne of extra fuel should take an A330-200 some 80Nm further, so I would hazard a guess that the quoted range also implies a higher payload.

That's what's puzzling. The payload for the quoted range should be the same (i.e., a full passenger load and no freight), since the passenger capacity should not change. This suggests that part of the MTOW gain is negated by an increase in the OEW.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18249 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
It's also interesting to read Airbus' assessment of the performance of early-build 787s:

- 2% above target fuel burn
- "tons" of extra OEW
- range of 6,720 NM

Going by my rumor mill...
2% above target fuel burn is within what I'm hearing (low end of penalty range. Yes, Boeing can miss by 2% on 'launch orders and not pay much. Hence launch customer discounts...)

However, I'm hearing a bit more on the range.  scratchchin  Increase in MTOW? Reduced payload assumption? I don't know.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 3):
The 7,000 NM seems to be coming within reach.

7,000nm should be considered a given on any A332 enhancement. Its pretty easy to accomplish. All Pratt needs to do is get out the 75k thrust they originally promised!  duck   Wink

What will be a bit more of a challenge is 7,250nm. Why this specific range? Non-ER 744 replacement!  wideeyed  Yea... not quite 77W range, but its enough to keep a few customers.  spin 

Since Pratt is locked off the 787, I wonder if it would pay off to do an IBR for the PW4000? The weight savings would be good... but also, with a fan upgrade, would give enough of a cut in the fuel burn to compete well! Not to mention its the high compressor that is holding back the thrust.  spin  Seriously, the A332/A333 needs the 75k thrust engine (RR, GE, Pratt... doesn't matter. To keep selling a small MTOW increase needs to be pushed through and that means more engine thrust.)

As I look at the payload revenue chart... I understand why I'm more interested in the 789.  Wink The weight has to go though... I'm a bit surprised at how badly CFRP airframes are missing weight targets...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2449 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18078 times:

I wonder how much, if any, OEW increase in the form of structural beefing-up is required since the A340-200 had MTOWs up to 275t. It's "only" 5t. If the entire 5t extra MTOW is devoted to fuel, the payload-range curve should shift 250-400nm higher.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 6):
Will the A330-300 also get the MTOW bump? The article doesn't say anything about it.

90 nm, as little as it is, might be helpful to a number of A330-300 operators. The airplane is payload-limited on a whole lot of routes.

It doesn't seem like Airbus is targeting aircraft already in the market, only new orders. Those operators could order the -300X which solves most of those problems already.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 18016 times:

The credibility is lacking based on this statement:

"By contrast, Davies added, the range for the 219.5t 787-8 would be limited to 6,720nm."

That's just innacurate, even for the first 20 examples. Or is he trying to compare the max payload range? Even then, that number is too high then, not too low.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 18015 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12):
7,000nm should be considered a given on any A332 enhancement. Its pretty easy to accomplish. All Pratt needs to do is get out the 75k thrust they originally promised!

They would have had it if they'd have just spent a little more money. They'd most certainly own the A330 market. But unfortunately that wasn't the case.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12):
Since Pratt is locked off the 787, I wonder if it would pay off to do an IBR for the PW4000? The weight savings would be good... but also, with a fan upgrade, would give enough of a cut in the fuel burn to compete well! Not to mention its the high compressor that is holding back the thrust. spin Seriously, the A332/A333 needs the 75k thrust engine (RR, GE, Pratt... doesn't matter. To keep selling a small MTOW increase needs to be pushed through and that means more engine thrust.)

I know the Trent700 has 75K thrust potential already built in that RR did for future growth of the A330...exactly what's happening now. One of the first things I thought of when I first read this, is what engines will be offered for this newer variant, and right now that's gonna be the RR Trents. How much work would have to be done to get 75K out of the PW4000??

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12):
The weight has to go though... I'm a bit surprised at how badly CFRP airframes are missing weight targets...

I am too, but perhaps Boeing was erring on the side of caution, since an all composite fuselage was a whole new animal. If I'm not mistaken, Boeing was planning on thinning the barrels slightly to save weight since the current barrels are overbuilt and stronger than need be. Looking into Boeing's past, I am certainly confident that the later 787s (2012 and later) will be 8,000nm beasts. Give em' time  Wink



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 37
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 17947 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
That is only at one point, I would expect the range at max payload to be increased by 300-400nm, no doubt will will see an update to this :

Myself as well, that "advantage" study is based on 2$ USG for fuel. The current fuel prices erase all of that so called advantage. A 60% increase in fuel cost over the price used in your chart erases all the "advantage" and puts it all the advantage on the 787 side by the same amount.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 17867 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 4):
think the only way to increase payload would be to increase the OEW. But since the A332 already had higher payload potential than the 787, why didn't Airbus choose to close the range gap to around 7,200nm or so??



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 13):
I wonder how much, if any, OEW increase in the form of structural beefing-up is required since the A340-200 had MTOWs up to 275t. It's "only" 5t. If the entire 5t extra MTOW is devoted to fuel, the payload-range curve should shift 250-400nm higher.

Assuming no increase in OEW is required to achieve the 5t increase in MTOW, and all of the increase in MTOW is used to carry additional fuel (possible as A332 is not fuel volume constrained), then my model suggests that range will increase by 365nm.

I think the most likely scenario is an increase of 2t in OEW, in which case the design range could go up by 220nm to 6,970nm.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2231 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16943 times:

Good news for the A330, however when doing the same to get the A346HGW it didn't attract so many customers in the light of the better 773ER. The 787 will stay in that "better" position. The A330 does and will sell very often because of availability.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12):
I'm a bit surprised at how badly CFRP airframes are missing weight targets...

I noticed that too some time ago. The 787 fails to achieve the theoretical weight reduction that comes with CFRP. There are many sources that literally expect a 20% weight hit (at least on a per part basis). If 50% of the weight is CFRP total weight savings could still be 10%. The 787 compared to the A330 doesn't realize that. It is only the A350 that achieves such a reduction compared with 777.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10039 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Scipio (Reply 2):
Would this MTOW increase also apply to the A330-200F, the A330-300 and the KC-45A?

I've wondered for some time whether we're seeing Airbus quietly introducing the "old" A350 via the back door, so to speak, and wonder if this is further evidence..

There's no doubt the old A350-800 would sit beautifully below the A350-XWB in the 250 seat range.

But the old A350-900 would compete directly against the A350-XWB.
So I wonder if that's why we're not seeing the increase on the A330-300..  scratchchin 

Rgds


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16319 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):

"By contrast, Davies added, the range for the 219.5t 787-8 would be limited to 6,720nm."

That's just innacurate, even for the first 20 examples. Or is he trying to compare the max payload range? Even then, that number is too high then, not too low.

The article answers your concerns:

Asked about the discrepancy (between Boeing's quoted range figures and Airbus' claimed range figures for the 787-8), Davies answered that Airbus has updated their analysis of the 787's performance specifications based on market intelligence.

Now, if this is the same market intelligence that made John Leahy predict the first 6-month delay of the 787 more than half a year before Boeing had to announce it, I wouldn't be so sure the claim by Airbus lacks credibility...

After all, the 787-8 is burning 2% more fuel than predicted, and is going to come in with litterally tons of overweight, which is unseen for a plane of just this size!


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9109 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15698 times:



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 16):
Myself as well, that "advantage" study is based on 2$ USG for fuel. The current fuel prices erase all of that so called advantage. A 60% increase in fuel cost over the price used in your chart erases all the "advantage" and puts it all the advantage on the 787 side by the same amount.

It is not that simple, the fuel price has increased on both sides, and on the revenue side, that has also increased, same for maintenance costs.

There must be a reason for airlines to still be buying A330s when they are more expensive than 787s. (Average A330-200 list price is 180.9 million, 787-8 162.0 million, after discounts, it still would be about 10 million differance).

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):
I think the most likely scenario is an increase of 2t in OEW, in which case the design range could go up by 220nm to 6,970nm.

Going by the numbers I have at hand, our 215t MTOW A330s OEW are about about 1450 kg lower than the 233t machines, I dont see 2t increase at all. From what I understand the changes are minimal.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
I've wondered for some time whether we're seeing Airbus quietly introducing the "old" A350 via the back door, so to speak, and wonder if this is further evidence..

This is just another A330 variant, it should show up on the TCDS as weight variation number WV058, the latest one published is WV055 which has a MTOW of 192,000 kg.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 20):
Now, if this is the same market intelligence that made John Leahy predict the first 6-month delay of the 787 more than half a year before Boeing had to announce it, I wouldn't be so sure the claim by Airbus lacks credibility...

I think you will find these are two very different sources, the manufacturing delays would come from airframe/system, and engine suppliers that two vendors have in common. For example if RR/GE get told that their engine will not be needed for xx months on the 787 test frame, their test schedules also go slow or may even stop. That progress is very transparent, and easy for people in the industry to observe without having to resort to what would be known as industrial espionage.

These weight issues I am confident comes from customers, it has been customers that have been in the press about the A380, 787, A350. Both the manufacturers would have set ambitious weight targets, it does not surprise me at all that they are not being achieved with early build airframes. If they did, the targets in my view are not getting the best out of the airframe.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAp305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14918 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
To be honest, a mere 1 tonne of extra fuel should take an A330-200 some 80Nm further, so I would hazard a guess that the quoted range also implies a higher payload

The previous 3 ton weight increase(230 to 233) resulted in about 350km greater range. My guess is that 6840nm range is with 9 abreast in economy.

[Edited 2008-09-10 03:56:38]

[Edited 2008-09-10 03:58:09]

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14659 times:

This will be interesting to follow.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12):
7,000nm should be considered a given on any A332 enhancement. Its pretty easy to accomplish. All Pratt needs to do is get out the 75k thrust they originally promised!

I wonder if GE might push for a GEnx design, as their CF6 engine sells poorly on the A330 and is not preffered on the A350XWB?

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 18):
Good news for the A330, however when doing the same to get the A346HGW it didn't attract so many customers in the light of the better 773ER. The 787 will stay in that "better" position. The A330 does and will sell very often because of availability.

Of course the 787 will eventually be the superior plane compared to the A330. But now that Boeing only accept new orders for the 787after 2020, there will be a huge demand for the A330 in the coming years.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
I've wondered for some time whether we're seeing Airbus quietly introducing the "old" A350 via the back door, so to speak, and wonder if this is further evidence

I think this might be what they are doing. Or taking some of the design ideas for the old A350 and put it onto the A330. The ting I wonder about is is they dare putting on the next generation of engines.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
There's no doubt the old A350-800 would sit beautifully below the A350-XWB in the 250 seat range.

 checkmark 

Quoting Zeke (Reply 21):
I think you will find these are two very different sources, the manufacturing delays would come from airframe/system, and engine suppliers that two vendors have in common. For example if RR/GE get told that their engine will not be needed for xx months on the 787 test frame, their test schedules also go slow or may even stop. That progress is very transparent, and easy for people in the industry to observe without having to resort to what would be known as industrial espionage.

These weight issues I am confident comes from customers, it has been customers that have been in the press about the A380, 787, A350. Both the manufacturers would have set ambitious weight targets, it does not surprise me at all that they are not being achieved with early build airframes. If they did, the targets in my view are not getting the best out of the airframe.

A very nice summary Zeke!



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 14321 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
I've wondered for some time whether we're seeing Airbus quietly introducing the "old" A350 via the back door, so to speak, and wonder if this is further evidence..

There's no doubt the old A350-800 would sit beautifully below the A350-XWB in the 250 seat range.

But the old A350-900 would compete directly against the A350-XWB.
So I wonder if that's why we're not seeing the increase on the A330-300..

Rgds

Actually, when the first news of the XWB broke, I did expect Airbus to keep the 'old' A350-800... Not only to compete with the 787-8, but it also wouldn't force their old A358 customers into a bigger (and heavier, thus less economical) plane. And the old A359 customers could then transition to the A358XWB...

As I said earlier, I was hoping for a more drasically improved A332, one with TrentXWB engines perhaps? But the question is, will the there be enough ROI to this expenditure? I guess Boeing wrestles with the same matter concerning the 77W, how much to invest in it to keep it competetive with the A350-1000 and still retain a decent ROI.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
25 EA772LR : Well to be fair, the GE isn't even offered on the 350XWB...yet. Well I should hope the 350XWB comes in much lighter than the 777 because the fuselage
26 OyKIE : My bad... Thank you for correcting
27 Stitch : Because they don't need to at the moment. When Boeing launches the 787-10 down the road, Airbus will improve the A330-300.
28 R2rho : I was disappointed by the thread title as well. This is just a higher MTOW variant, which is a nice evolution, but it is nothing spectacular. This is
29 Ikramerica : And I don't buy it. Just because he says "I have my reasons" doesn't mean he's right. 6700nm is awful. The plane would have to be so overweight, and
30 A342 : I offer my apologies if you think the title was inappropriate. If Airbus had announced something more revolutionary, then maybe I would have written
31 Astuteman : Tend to agree. By my calculations, a 114 tonne OEW 787-8, limited to 219 tonne MTOW, would make about 7 200Nm IMO. I believe it would need an MTOW in
32 Moo : Are GE on the first 20 aircraft at all?
33 RIX : - won't it compete directly to smaller 350? Then it's like for Boeing to make 772ERX which will compete to bigger 787. - but will a "true" enhancemen
34 EA772LR : I don't believe so, which is why Ikramerica stated RR in his post. NH, NW, and a few other initial launch customers are all RR.
35 Moo : It was more a rhetorical question for Astuteman, to explain why RR was mentioned but GE was not with regard to the underperformance that Airbus is ex
36 Ikramerica : But he's talking about the first 20, most of which are RR. So I was just pointing out that a similar engine is slated to power the A350. I like RR en
37 Astuteman : Doh! My bad True, except for I don't think the A330 will anywhere near match the fuel burn. It will almost certainly be carrying 10%-12% more fuel. I
38 Post contains links LAXDESI : My calculations show a cabin area of 249 sq. meter for B788, and 243 sq. meter for A332. Clearly A332 is not larger, and is appropriately compared to
39 Ikramerica : You are likely right. I was just giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, that he wasn't just pulling numbers out of his butt. And the A330 is selli
40 Frigatebird : No need to apologise I was (and still am) hoping for that!
41 Lightsaber : Very little. A few pieces of the nacelle would have to be upgraded to titanium from aluminum (due to the heat of the compressor surge vents crossing
42 A342 : Well, then I wonder why Pratt chose to go the Advantage70 route instead of a more comprehensive upgrade like the one you describe?
43 Gigneil : Lightsaber- What can you tell me about the Advantage70? Delta in the BOM from the PW4168A, etc? Can that engine scale any further? NS
44 PM : Yes. No. Of the first 20, 9 will have RR and 11 will have GE.
45 OyKIE : Me too!!!! About the MTOW on the A330. What would it take to make the MTWOW match the A340-200 at 275 tonnes? Are there any structural differences? H
46 Zeke : It would be handy to have another 5t on the 333, don't see any reason why it would not be offered, the current highest MTOW of 233t is offered on bot
47 Worldrider : [qu as far as i know, GE did offer the GEnx but only for the A358 not for all the 3 variants, Airbus was not interested indeed
48 OyKIE : So this means that with a 75 000 lb engine they might get between 250 and 275 tonnes MTOW on the A330? Good point
49 Art : It would make sense to me if the "free" incremental improvements accruing from the early A350 design that could be quickly and easily applied to the
50 R2rho : Woah, there's some confusion here, we're talking about the A330! GE did offer the GEnx I think back in Farnborough 2006 (by then the A350 Version 1.0
51 Moo : They were studying the possibility, but no decision was made. Weirdly enough, I distinctly remember reading an article where GE had finally dismissed
52 Astuteman : No. you didn't dream this. It was said. When I've a bit more time I'll find the Flightglobal link. Rgds
53 Bobnwa : What specific routes do you have in mind, that would be gained by an additional 90 nm in range?
54 Frigatebird : But wouldn't that be a problem Airbus would have to address, instead of GE?
55 EA772LR : The A330 would have to have some serious upgrades to be grown to 250 tonnes not to mention 275 tonne, and no 75K would not do the trick for 275 tonne
56 Trex8 : if it starts getting to 250k + MTOW do they need to put the A343 center landing gear on the A330?
57 A342 : Yep, that's highly probable. As Zeke stated, the original A343 had a 253.5 tonne MTOW, and you bet it had the center gear.
58 Astuteman : The original A350 was 245 tonnes without centre gear. I would guess that this weight is pretty doable. I'm not sure why Airbus would want to go any h
59 OyKIE : Why does it need a serious upgrade to handle a 250 tonne MTOW? When the sister plane A340-200 is already up in 275 tonnes? So it would not require al
60 Stitch : It is possible, however, that Airbus went with stronger trucks, struts and tires (for higher tire-loadings/pressures) on the original A350 design com
61 EA772LR : True, but the wings on the A340 are beefed up significantly to handle the additional 42 tonnes over the current 330's 233 tonne MTOW. Plus the 340s h
62 Scipio : At some point the costs of pushing the MTOW up should outweigh the benefits, especially if it requires increases in OEW that adversely affect economic
63 EA772LR : Very well said and I share your opinion This, by no means is a put down of the A330 either.
64 EPA001 : I missed the last replies in this thread completely. So it was nice to do some catching up. But Scipio sums it up very, very well. Like EA772LR says
65 Jambrain : How will PW4000 Advantage70 compare to Trent 700 EPs after RR back port the improvements in the LP turbine and other technology flowed from the Trent
66 Lightsaber : The more comprehensive route I describe would require the sale of 150 more engines to pay for it. It would also require a partial recert of the nacel
67 DocLightning : Dishonest spin. It drives me nuts with A does this, and A does it a LOT. Now, I used to be a Boeing cheerleader, but I'm not anymore. I've reached a
68 Speedmarque : So is this enhanced A330 close to what the "original" A350 (non xwb) was going to be like?
69 Zeke : No I was not, I said A306 (A300-600) and 767, I was specifically thinking of the 787-3. They have actually been comparing the A330 to the 787-8 for s
70 Astuteman : If I recall correctly, the new wing (or at least the main spar, which is pretty much the same statement) was a pre-requisite of sticking the GEnx und
71 DocLightning : Although Boeing has a reputation for figuring out how to make HGW variants of just about every type they've ever made.
72 Alessandro : I think Airbus should offer this version as an upgrade on existing A332s as well, must be some interest from current operators that soon shall have th
73 EPA001 : A very good post Astuteman, as usual. In The Netherlands we have a saying that the soup will never be eaten as hot as it is served. That goes also fo
74 Jambrain : Are you saying that comparing Trent 700s to T1000s (or CF6-80 vs GEnx) -pressure ratios go from 32 ish to 52 ish -byepass ratios from 5 to 11 ish You
75 Astuteman : My figure is purely based on my understanding of the weights and ranges, and thus the fuel that would/could be carried on those missions. I wouldn't
76 LipeGIG : It says that the advantage is created with A332 @ 247 seats. I recall AF carry 219, TAM 213. The advantage seems to be based on a high-density config
77 Stitch : Well both planes evidently have their fans in the airlines, since the A330-200 is now over 500 sales and the 787-8 is closing on 650. I know the cynic
78 Zeke : The new wing was also needed for the higher cruise speed. The 788 and 789 already are HGW versions, customers like QF have already pushed Boeing to o
79 Ikramerica : If it goes for the 787, it MUST go for the A350X, because that aircraft has more ambitious goals than the 787, using roughly the same technology (onl
80 DocLightning : For now. Until someone comes along with better engines.
81 Stitch : Boeing has room to grow the 787-8's MTOW without too much of an OEW penalty, but you are correct the 787-9 has much less room to maneuver (which is a
82 Lightsaber : The 783 has an oversized wing for the mission. Replacing swept wingtips with winglets helped reduce the span for gate utilization; but Boeing never i
83 Ikramerica : Well if all of this speculation is close to accurate, it might explain QF's new found interest in the "outdated" 777. Because the 789 won't do what a
84 LAXDESI : Here's a comparison of the 219.5t B788(250 seats) with 7,400nm range to the heavier A332(250 seats) with an MTOW of 238t with a range of 6,840nm. The
85 Ikramerica : That's interesting. I would venture though that if the 788 has other benefits as Boeing suggests, such as lower maintenance costs and longer life part
86 Stitch : Well QF were the ones who pushed Boeing to increase the 787-9's MTOW. Since Boeing is pushing it back to 2012, that will give them three years to wor
87 Astuteman : I guess that's the key, really. It's all too easy to get carried away in this sort of speculation. I have a hard time imagining the 787 will be anyth
88 LAXDESI : On the other hand, the lower net price of A332 is likely to negate some(or all?) of the advantage of lower maintenance costs of a B788.
89 Baroque : We certainly do not seem to have seen what can be achieved with a metal fuse and composite wings for an A330 size aircraft using up to date materials
90 Astuteman : Was that me? I thought I was just agreeing with someone else... I would expect an all-welded structure to deliver weight savings - but it wouldn't be
91 Frigatebird : And that was IMO the main reason why the 789 was pushed back 2 years. Not just the production problems that Boeing had (and has) getting the 787 into
92 EPA001 : I am not so sure that the A350-XWB has higher ambitious goals then the B787 had. I think they are pretty much on par in that department. On the B787
93 Stitch : I'm confident Boeing will get all models of the 787 right over time. In a decade, Boeing increased the MTOW of the 777-200 by 100 tons with only a 9 t
94 Lightsaber : That's funny... You almost always say Trent XWB! Seriously, a 10% to 12% cut in A332 fuel burn would create a very different economic profile (not to
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FI: Airbus To Offer Customers Cash Back On A340s posted Mon Jan 23 2006 11:29:54 by Leelaw
Airbus, Northrop To Offer A330-200F posted Sat Dec 31 2005 02:00:57 by KC135TopBoom
Air China To Order 20 Airbus A330-200 posted Thu Jul 21 2005 18:15:25 by Beaucaire
Air China To Buy 20 A330-200 Aircraft From Airbus posted Thu Jan 27 2005 02:19:25 by Jacobin777
Whats Happened To Lufthansa's A330-200's posted Sat Jan 5 2008 09:22:22 by Gilesdavies
Airbus Lobbies GE To Offer GEnx For A350 XWB posted Fri Apr 20 2007 12:12:09 by Keesje
Oman Air Says It Will Order Airbus A330-200 posted Mon Apr 2 2007 14:06:41 by EI321
SU Confirm MoU To Buy 22 A350s + Lease 10 A330-200 posted Thu Mar 15 2007 12:40:28 by Sabenapilot
Airbus To Increase A330 Prod. From 7 To 9/month posted Thu Feb 8 2007 05:18:06 by Manni
Varig To Get A330-200? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 18:39:21 by Thorben
SU Confirm MoU To Buy 22 A350s + Lease 10 A330-200 posted Thu Mar 15 2007 12:40:28 by Sabenapilot
Airbus To Increase A330 Prod. From 7 To 9/month posted Thu Feb 8 2007 05:18:06 by Manni
Varig To Get A330-200? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 18:39:21 by Thorben