Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A330-200F Receives Easa Type Certificate  
User currently offlineflyingwaeldar From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2009, 108 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8193 times:

Now on the Airbus homepage:

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre..._04_09_a330200f_certification.html

"Aircraft's payload capability of 70 tonnes is one tonne greater than expected

The A330-200F has been granted Type Certification today by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) following a successful 200-hour flight-test campaign. The trials were performed by two aircraft, covering both engine types on offer: the Pratt and Whitney PW4000 and the Rolls-Royce Trent 700."


37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Congrats.   

The plane looks across the board to be a perfect replacement for DC-10-30F operators: same payload weight with a tiny bit better volume and about 10% more range.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3849 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8050 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
same payload weight with a tiny bit better volume and about 10% more range.

And a much lower fuel burn...  

Who's getting it first? Etihad Crystal Cargo?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinejonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7864 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 2):
Who's getting it first? Etihad Crystal Cargo?

Yes Etihad will get the first one over the summer.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The plane looks across the board to be a perfect replacement for DC-10-30F operators: same payload weight with a tiny bit better volume and about 10% more range

You're right, but I also think it will make a good alternative to the larger freighters like 747 or 777, especially in the context of pressured yields and high fuel price. Large freighters are definitely required on trunk routes but there are many markets where the 100 tonnes cannot be filled profitably. A smaller freighter, with very good economics, can be a credible alternative.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7489 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jonathan-l (Reply 3):
You're right, but I also think it will make a good alternative to the larger freighters like 747 or 777, especially in the context of pressured yields and high fuel price.

Well the success of the 767 freighter (both new-builds and conversions) bears that out, and the A332F slots nicely between the 767F and 777F.


User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7155 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 2):
And a much lower fuel burn...

But you'd have to burn a lot of gas to make up the difference between the cost of a used DC-10-30F and a brand-spanking-new A332F, wouldn't you?

I'm not saying the newer machines won't be successful (especially on busy/regular/frequently flown routes), but that the older gear could still be useful on less-frequently-flown routes.


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4725 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6797 times:

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 5):
I'm not saying the newer machines won't be successful (especially on busy/regular/frequently flown routes), but that the older gear could still be useful on less-frequently-flown routes.

I don't think it is as much a question of frequency, but more of utilization. A new aircraft works best if utilization is high, because then the fuel savings are relatively large and the ownershipcosts per flighthour are relatively low. An older aircraft works best the other way around, if utilization is low so the fuel penalty is not too great, while the low ownership costs don't place a big burden on the costs per flighthour. That is why Allegiant is so succesful with MD-80's that love to consume fuel. They can park the aircraft for most of the day and that doesn't cost them a whole lot.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineConti764 From Belgium, joined Dec 2007, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6138 times:

Maybe a dumb question, but if Airbus gets an EASA certification for the A330, does that automaticaly clear the plane for service over the entire world? And thus does Boeing f.e. only need a FAA certification? Or does every manufacturer have to go through another certification process?

User currently offlineFlyMeToTheMoon From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 242 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6016 times:

'This EASA award will be followed by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Type Certification. ' it is in the notice on the site. JAA certification is required as well.


Fly me to the moon... but not through LHR!
User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4988 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Well the success of the 767 freighter (both new-builds and conversions) bears that out, and the A332F slots nicely between the 767F and 777F.

Freight Operators are getting more choices for the best plane for their job. Indeed the A332F sits nicely between the two Boeings. Also the 1 tonne extra payload is a nice mark for the program which seems to be quite well on track.  


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5855 times:

Quoting Conti764 (Reply 7):
Maybe a dumb question, but if Airbus gets an EASA certification for the A330, does that automaticaly clear the plane for service over the entire world? And thus does Boeing f.e. only need a FAA certification? Or does every manufacturer have to go through another certification process?

If the aircraft has an EASA certification, it can be registered in the EU. If somebody wants to register it in the USA, an FAA certification is needed.
The certification requirements are pretty much the same, so if you have gained certification from one agency, the other is likely to validate it rather quickly without much fuss. Usually no additional testing is required, "just" paperwork.

Now many countries (or rather the overwhelming majority) don't have agencies capable of certificating larger aircraft. For this reason, if both the FAA and EASA award type certification for an aircraft, nearly any other agency around the world will be satistied and issue a certificate without asking for any testing or even results.

Quoting FlyMeToTheMoon (Reply 8):
JAA certification is required as well.

EASA has superseeded the JAA.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5836 times:

At 70 tons payload she'll outlift a 767-300ERF by around 12-14 tons, but will be lacking the 777F by around 36 tons. She'll also lift those 12-14 tons a bit farther than a 767, but fall almost 2000 miles short of a 777 carrying its full load. The A330 offers 475 sqm of volume, the 767 holds 432 sqm and the 777 bulks out at 653 sqm.

That's not really "nicely between" the two Boeing products, rather it looks more like this version of the A330 will do the same to the B767 as it's passenger carrying sisters have done.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5338 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First, congrats to Airbus!   

Now to see how the engine sales go.  
Quoting JRadier (Reply 6):
A new aircraft works best if utilization is high, because then the fuel savings are relatively large and the ownershipcosts per flighthour are relatively low. An older aircraft works best the other way around, if utilization is low so the fuel penalty is not too great, while the low ownership costs don't place a big burden on the costs per flighthour.

  

For about half the year, half the freighters are parked. So a large cargo airline will need a mix of older (paid off or cheap to finance) freighters and freighters efficient at high utilization.

Quoting A342 (Reply 10):
Usually no additional testing is required, "just" paperwork.

I'm glad you put a quotes around "just" paperwork.   

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 11):
That's not really "nicely between" the two Boeing products, rather it looks more like this version of the A330 will do the same to the B767 as it's passenger carrying sisters have done.

First, thank you for the numbers. I agree, this freighter doesn't really split the gap between the 767ERF and 777F.

In some ways I see the A330F being much more attractive to volume limited operations. e.g., MEM to large European cities that are not the primary hub. Perhaps as the 2nd flight in a day to carry any overflow of cargo?

This is more weight than the DC-10-30F with substantially more volume (475m^2 vs. 350m^2 per following link).
http://www.aircharterservice.ae/aircraft/dc10_30_douglas.htm

I find it very interesting how the range is very payload weight dependent (and the A332's centerline tank).  

I also find it interesting how much more weight the MD-11F can haul. In other words, I see that type remaining popular for a while longer.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5234 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):
This is more weight than the DC-10-30F with substantially more volume (475m^2 vs. 350m^2 per following link).

I'm not sure what the "usable volume" is since the combined main deck and lower hold volume is 423m^3. Maybe when it's hauling 66 tons at "general cargo density" (~160kg/m^3)?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9242 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5149 times:

Quoting flyingwaeldar (Thread starter):

The A330-200F has been granted Type Certification today by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) following a successful 200-hour flight-test campaign.

Amazing that any aircraft in this day and age could actually receive certification without an "Official A330-200F Flight Tracking Thread" on a.net and a plethora of press statements and alike from the management.

This has been a case of a silent achiever.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The plane looks across the board to be a perfect replacement for DC-10-30F operators: same payload weight with a tiny bit better volume and about 10% more range.

Can the D-10-30F do Asia to ANC non-stop ? What is the payload comparison like when a typical package freighter density is used ?

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 5):
But you'd have to burn a lot of gas to make up the difference between the cost of a used DC-10-30F and a brand-spanking-new A332F, wouldn't you?

It is not just fuel, maintenance, crews, landing charges, and enroute charges are all higher on the DC-10.




We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Can the D-10-30F do Asia to ANC non-stop?

Loaded to 70t, a DC-10-30F looks to be able to fly 5500km, which is what GCM gives as the distance between NRT-ANC, so I am guessing it's going to be really close depending on winds aloft.

Assuming the A330-200F's ranges have not changed, it should be able to move 70t 5930km so it should be good to go.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Assuming the A330-200F's ranges have not changed, it should be able to move 70t 5930km so it should be good to go.

Thank you for your numbers.

It is the 'silent acheiver.'

In some ways, I expect the value of the A330F to be in future resale of A332's for pax to freight conversions. Although... there will be bit of engineering required there. But that is far into the future.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4911 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
It is not just fuel, maintenance, crews, landing charges, and enroute charges are all higher on the DC-10.

Of course -- I meant (and should have said) "per-hour operating cost", which might be dominated by the price of gas ($$$/bbl), or the price of maintenance (DC-10 spare parts), or flight engineer salaries, or whatever, depending on conditions.

So let's suppose the following numbers (please correct unrealistic assumptions):

1. A new A332F costs $120mm, net. (List prices are in the $180mm range -- assume a 33% discount off list.)

2. A used DC-10-30F costs $20mm, "ready to go" (i.e., having just gone through an A-check).

3. An hour of operating an A332F costs $8k, net (including gas, crew, maintenance, insurance, ...).

4. An hour of operating a DC-10-30SF does indeed cost 72% more (according to Airbus' own presentation), i.e., $13.8k/hour, or $5.8k/hour more.

So now you're talking about a $100mm difference in up-front costs, vs. a $5.8k/hour operating cost.

Suppose you take the $100mm up-front cash difference and try to decide whether to buy a new A332F, or to put it in the bank at 3% interest -- that gives you $3mm/year of interest.

Your A332F has to beat the interest on the up-front expense (3%) in its operating cost savings -- which it can do if it flies a little over 500 hours per year (500 x $5.8k


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4894 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 17):
1. A new A332F costs $120mm, net. (List prices are in the $180mm range -- assume a 33% discount off list.)

I know what Intrepid Aviation paid for their's and while I can't share it, I can say it was significantly less than $120 million. I expect other launch customers received similar pricing.

[Edited 2010-04-10 22:20:39]

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4862 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):
Now to see how the engine sales go.

"Slowly"... is the best answer so far!

Two-thirds of the orders thus far (44 out of 66) are from leasing companies. Only a few of these planes have so far been placed - all, to date, with RR.

Just five airlines have ordered planes (22) directly from Airbus:

Flyington Freighters (12) PW
MNG (4) RR
Etihad (2) RR
Turkish (2) RR
Malaysia Airlines (2) ??

BUT...

Flyington were meant to take the first examples and that's why MSN 1004 (the first A330F) flew with PW. However, Flyington appears to have sunk beneath the waves. Airbus still lists their order for 12 but no planes are currently in production for them and MSN 1004 will be converted to RR for delivery to Turkish.

So, all end users that we know of so far are scheduled to have RR. PW's best immediate hope is that they'll win the big recent Malaysia order. If they don't...


User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4734 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 19):
So, all end users that we know of so far are scheduled to have RR.

I see the RR & P&W certified for same weights, despite RR having 7% higher maximum continuous thrust.

That must mean the RR birds have a far superior climb performance 

From
http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/...4%20Airbus%20A330%20issue%2019.pdf

Pratt & Whitney 4170
Static thrust at sea level:
- take-off (5mn) ......................70,000 lbs
- maximum continuous............59,357 lbs

Rolls Royce Trent 772B-60
- take-off (5mn) *....................71,100 lbs
- maximum continuous...........63,560 lbs

They have same Maximum Certified Weights:
MTOW (T)....233
MLW (T)..... 182
MZFW (T)... 173



Jambrain
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10937 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4732 times:

Welcome to the newly certified Airbus freighter. She is a pretty aircraft.
Wishing A330-200F a successful career!   



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Amazing that any aircraft in this day and age could actually receive certification without an "Official A330-200F Flight Tracking Thread" on a.net and a plethora of press statements and alike from the management.

I read somewhere recently (on GLG perhaps?) an "analyst" stating that it was years and years since Airbus delivered a programme on time and on spec.

The implication was that they never would again.

I'm rather hoping that the A330F turns out to be a runaway success. It certainly seems to be off to a good start.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4479 times:

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 17):
So now you're talking about a $100mm difference in up-front costs, vs. a $5.8k/hour operating cost.

Suppose you take the $100mm up-front cash difference and try to decide whether to buy a new A332F, or to put it in the bank at 3% interest -- that gives you $3mm/year of interest.

Your A332F has to beat the interest on the up-front expense (3%) in its operating cost savings -- which it can do if it flies a little over 500 hours per year (500 x $5.8k

It's no wonder the big cargo haulers fly with on average old aircraft. I think airbus is lucky to be in a segment with the A330F where their is not much competition left. DC10, MD11, L1011, A300 are older / converted already. The 767 seems the most serious competitor, payload/range and availability are good. Container compatibility is lower. Still I expect hundreds to be converted.

I seriously worry about the 747-8F though. Relative efficient 747-400s are becoming available being replaced by 773-300ER and A380's. Many are in the desert. The Israeli's / Chinese are getting ready to convert them. I do not know the actual price for a converted / D-checked -400. A few years ago it was $70 million. But availability was low and demand high then.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4366 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Assuming the A330-200F's ranges have not changed, it should be able to move 70t 5930km so it should be good to go.

I really wonder when Airbus is going to offer the 238t MTOW on the A332F. Then in range mode, with a 64t (or rather 65t now?) payload, it should be able to approach or even match the range of a non-ER 744F.
However, MZFW on the passenger A332 is 170t, so they might have to reduce payload if they want to offer the 238t MTOW option on the freighter?

Another thought regarding weights.
MZFW on the 233t MTOW A333 is 175t. So I guess they could apply that to the A332F, with MTOW staying at 233t.

Note: all this is assuming they don't want to strengthen the structure any more. But if they do, they might be able to offer a 70t payload with the 238t MTOW option.   

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):
I'm glad you put a quotes around "just" paperwork.

   Really no expert in this area, but paperwork rarely implies a lack of work.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 21):
She is a pretty aircraft.

Have to disagree. The bulge on the nose looks hideous.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
25 Stitch : Even with the 747-400BCF and 747-400SDF programs in place, Boeing still sold plenty of 747-400Fs and 747-400ERFs and the 747-8F has recorded in less
26 keesje : Used B747-400 were not available. Airlines kept them longer then foreseen because of the A380 delays. The situation has changed, 50-60 747-400s are p
27 Stitch : Fiddlesticks. The 747-400BCF program predates the 747-8F by some two years, having been launched in 2004. The 747-400BCF had recorded 37 orders and 2
28 Post contains images Conti764 : Danke schön!
29 XT6Wagon : orders are down because cargo operations are down. no other reason.
30 Post contains links keesje : Netz notes that A380 program delays have caused airlines to hold onto 747-400s longer. "It's not a problem of demand [for converted freighters]," he s
31 Post contains images Stitch : It still didn't stop plenty of 747-400BCFs being delivered during 2006-2007. And if the A380's EIS delays helped Boeing sell 747-8Fs, then that's not
32 A342 : But look at aircraft values. Back then, airlines decided to replace 744s with 773ERs and A380s, but the values of used 744s were still good. Now with
33 Post contains images Stitch : Like just about everything except the A388 and 77W, 744 values have indeed collapsed in the last 12 months - they're down upwards of 40% from 2009. H
34 Post contains images lightsaber : Sigh... But there are multiple cargo markets. Cargolux operates enough of their planes with high enough utilization that the 748 makes great sense. F
35 Post contains images Stitch : Also, the 747-8F has a number of tricks up her sleeve. One big one is her LON QC is half that of the 747-400BCF on departure and might be half that o
36 flyingAY : How many orders there have been for the A332F, 767F and 777F since that day? Are they negative too?
37 PM : No. 777F = 1 767F = 3 A330F = 16 But these are gross figures. I'm not sure if cancellations need to be taken off any of these. And, to be fair, I don
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...
A330-200F Delivers Aid To Chile posted Tue Apr 6 2010 17:01:55 by leezyjet
HK Airlines To Get A330-200F posted Thu Jan 14 2010 03:55:32 by Flying-Tiger
A330-200F First Flight This Thursday - Nov 5 posted Tue Nov 3 2009 11:31:38 by Scipio
Turkish Airlines To Order 2 A330-200F posted Sat Oct 31 2009 06:01:16 by TKfan
A330-200F Roll Out posted Mon Oct 19 2009 09:00:11 by CCA
First A330-200F Won't Meet Empty Weight Target posted Fri Sep 25 2009 13:51:17 by Keesje
Airbus A330-200F - Any ''NEW'' Information? posted Mon Nov 17 2008 11:38:43 by WINGS
A330-200F Deliveries Delayed To 2010? posted Wed Sep 10 2008 15:36:37 by A342
BOC Orders A330-200F posted Thu Feb 21 2008 23:24:52 by Flying-tiger
MNG Firms A330-200F Order posted Mon Feb 4 2008 06:45:27 by Flying-Tiger