N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19426 times:
One surprise of today’s press conference in Hamburg was that Airbus is thinking of sharklets for the A 330. I thought that’s worth starting a separate thread (please delete or move to technical ops if not appropriate).
How do you see this step by Airbus? Seems as if they are still planning with the A 330 for years to come.
As I said in the thread about the press conference: this information was presented by John Leahy. So I don’t think it’s just an academic study but rather a signal to the market.
JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19092 times:
Presumably this will be for retrofit also - potentially a large market, whereas the forward market beyond what is already on order must surely start to shrink soon.
india1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18930 times:
They've mentioned only the sharklets bit at the PC, but given that Tony Fernandes has been pushing for a 330NEO in the past, is that any more of a possibility after today?
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18746 times:
This seems to be the pattern for larger airframes. Both the 757 and 767-300ER got blended winglets very late in the types' production run, and midway through their ultimate service lives. Apparently the same is about to happen to the 777-200ER. It's a good way for operators to keep their existing aircraft within striking distance of newer competitors.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18460 times:
How much more effienicy can blended winglets have over the exsisting winglets on the A-330/-340? Would it really be worth the costs for a 1%-2% improvement?
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1011 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18316 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): How much more effienicy can blended winglets have over the exsisting winglets on the A-330/-340? Would it really be worth the costs for a 1%-2% improvement?
Probably not so we must assume that the improvement is more than 1-2%
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 535 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18290 times:
I always thought that raked wingtips were more efficient for long haul flights (e.g 77W) than the blended wingtips which are better for shorter and medium haul? (e.g A320's/737 and 757s).
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6869 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18165 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): How much more effienicy can blended winglets have over the exsisting winglets on the A-330/-340? Would it really be worth the costs for a 1%-2% improvement?
It's a medium/long-haul plane. Even a 1% fuel burn efficiency over all those hours could mean the difference between profitability and non-profitability in today's highly competitive industry.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18075 times:
Thanks for starting a separate thread, it definitely deserves it.
As the A330 already has first-generation winglets, I assume that there won't be any significant weight increase or reinforcements needed to replace them by current-generation "sharklets". Therefore the 2t MTOW increase for the -200 should go fully into additional PL/Range. In addition, I don't expect huge fuel savings from the sharklets versus old winglets (it's not coming from no winglets at all like the 767 which gained 4-5% IIRC), so let's say 2-3% savings (I doubt Airbus would do this for just 1-2% savings). Now where would 2t MTOW+sharklets put the A330-200 PL-Range wise...I'd say pretty damn close to the 788. And with some luck, the sharklets could even be retrofittable...
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1702 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 15816 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): How much more effienicy can blended winglets have over the exsisting winglets on the A-330/-340? Would it really be worth the costs for a 1%-2% improvement?
Daysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 800 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days ago) and read 15361 times:
I’d love to see them drop the A358 and use its engines to do an A330NEO. They could even use the T1000 from the 787, both engines are slightly more powerful but as someone said in the Airbus Press Release thread in theory the A330 wings should be able to support up to 275t so another MTOW bump wouldn’t be out the question.
I think it would be very competitive with the 787-8, perhaps even better than the first few very overweight ones.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days ago) and read 15136 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 19): It was worth for 767, it will be worth for A330.
It's not quite as clear-cut. The 767 has rather short wings for an airliner its size and originally had no winglets. The A330 has much longer wings to start with and originally came with basic winglets.
That said, I expect it will still be worth it, especially as a retrofit.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days ago) and read 15022 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6): This seems to be the pattern for larger airframes. Both the 757 and 767-300ER got blended winglets very late in the types' production run, and midway through their ultimate service lives.
Quoting carl50mq (Reply 17): The A320 family, now the A330, and soon the A380 ?
26 ikramerica: Exactly, Airbus should just dump the A358, focus on the A330NG, and hand the 787-9 a stronger competitor. A359 and 10 are 777 competitors/replacement
27 airbazar: I can think of 1 airline where that is already the case: TP. Now whether the airline will be around long enough that's a whole different can of worms
28 bonusonus: IIRC, when the A380 was designed, wingtip fences were chosen instead of raked wingtips, because the wingspan was already at a maximum for most airpor
29 RoseFlyer: I don't think that is a safe assumption. Sharklets are not available for retrofit on the A320 since the wing is not strong enough without structural
30 ferpe: You would have to solve the problem of ground clearance, the Trent 700 has a 97.4' fan, the T1000 112 and TXWB 118', it would be an expensive upgrade
31 lightsaber: Am I the only one who thinks this will help A333 sales? Most of the discussion seems to be A330NEO or A332 w/new winglets. The largest delta would be
32 JoeCanuck: Who knows? In the end we may end up with a 350 mk1, in all but name. The 330 was a good candidate for the Al-li that was originally planned, and I bel
33 scbriml: While the second part of this statement is accurate, I'm not sure about the first. IIRC, JetBlue has already ordered them for retrofit.
34 SandroZRH: Break it down: Let's assume the average fuel burn for your typical ZRH-ORD flight would be around 50 tons for an A333 (I have no idea -yet- about act
35 zeke: Airinsight ran some articles last year which would add some dimension to what is being discussed here. Possibility of an A330 NEO http://airinsight.co
36 astuteman: Airbus were already solving this for the old A350..... Nitpick - the T1000 is 111" fan There are 238t A332's in service now. This is a further 2t on
37 ikramerica: How much range would 7t of fuel add? Or is the A330 fuel capacity limited at max range?
38 tropical: Does anyone know how much over the 80 metre limit would the A380 go with sharklets? Can't be that much surely, and I'm sure most airports that cater
39 KC135TopBoom: They already tried that with the A-350 Mk.I Don't do it. Exactly. It would still be some 30,000 lbs heavier, or more. The B-767 originally didn't hav
40 ferpe: The present ACAP states 233t for the 333 but I have a note of an announced increase to 235t for the 333, can anyone verify this? Here my payload-rang
41 imiakhtar: 7t will give you a little over one hour of flight. I'm guessing the improvements, if offered, will appear on the A330-200 first. The 330-200 is proba
42 mariner: Which had garnered 200 orders before it was canned. One of the great sadnesses - to me - of recent airline manufacture was the ferocity of the campai
43 ferpe: @Zeke, do you often end up being MZFW limited? With what WV and cabin config in that case (have not done any checks on how a full load pans out theor
44 zeke: That is not however for today’s A333. I am interested to see how these improvements work out in the sub 5000 nm range. If you take 400 kg off to ca
45 seabosdca: That is only true for the very earliest build units. Most 788s (including the ones currently on the assembly line) will be several tonnes lighter tha
46 zeke: Maybe 2-3 t? not 30,000 lb..... Still does not help it close the 5t payload advantage the A332 has.
47 ikramerica: But it would make A332/A333 viable 77E replacements for just about every route 77Es fly, other than the stupidly long ones that will be flown by 789
48 ghifty: I have a hard time believing that.. because if that was the case, Airbus could start delivering A340's with two engines instead of four.
49 ferpe: The A330 is just that, that is the genius move at the time by A. They had 2 programs wanting the resources, A300-TA9 and TA11, they therefore combine
50 poLOT: Airbus does deliver A340s with 2 engines. They call it the A330 It is fundamentally the same wing, with just some extra strengthening here and there
51 Stitch: Yes, Airbus announced it in January 2011 and stated it would be available on deliveries starting in Q1 of 2012. It is designated as WV54.
52 trex8: And one reason the RAAF chose it because it felt this was a less technically risky solution to the wing refuelling pods than trying to put them on a
53 prebennorholm: It will take a tiny fraction of 5 years if only the engine exists. Otherwise the A330 wouldn't have existed already with engines from three engine ma
54 FRAIAD: From a totally subjective perspective without thinking about additional range and fuel efficiency: Sharklets would completely destroy the beauty of on
55 glidepath73: Maybe.... but lets wait for first renderings.....
56 r2rho: I also think this greatly increases the possibility of an A330NEO happening. Why would Airbus invest money & (scarce) resources in an airplane tha
57 astuteman: For what it's worth, if the XWB was just a tad more, well, er, wide, I think that would have made the perfect line-up for Airbus - the old A350 AND a
58 KC135TopBoom: That is another 2 hours of flying time, which no one is saying right now. Correct.
59 Burkhard: The A350 is another market than the A330. The A332 is smaller than the A358, and has about 1000 miles less range. Even with winglets and T1000 or sim
60 ferpe: The average fuel burn for a 333 is about 6t/hr but it burns about 5t/hr for the last part of the leg. Count 0.4t to get the fuel there (thanks Zeke)
61 ferpe: Some nice additional info on the winglets in AW: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...rease%20Before%20A320&channel=comm A will bring it if it g
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26686 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2011, 90 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1011 posts, 
From Martinique, joined Nov 2007, 13 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1702 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
