BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1094 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23782 times:
Airbus to raise A330-300 MTOW to 242t and activate the center tank, maybe they are planning a 787-10 killer...
I'm sure that A333 customers will be very happy about this as it will make some restricted routes more practical, it will make it a more capable aircraft at long ranges and allow more freight to be carried. On Flightglobal Pro no free link as yet.
ba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8276 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23666 times:
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 1): Correct me if im wrong but I thought the -300 didnt have a centre tank? When you say activate, im thinking its already there, but not used...
76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 412 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23608 times:
Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 3): It is already there, just not used on the -300.
My thoughts exactly, the article however states that the -300 does have the tank built in.
Nevertheless, amazing A still manages to tweak the 330, even with the 350 coming ever closer to first flight. Seems the WO330 will see the light of day after all.
qf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23575 times:
Yeah baby, yeah!!!!
This A330 is getting better and better!!! Let the orders roll in... I must say, now that the A340-500/ -600 are dead (for new planes at least), the A330 is my favourite plane! It looks great and its seems to have a lot of potential still!
3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23486 times:
Adding a center tank probably wouldn't be that difficult, the architecture in that area of the aircraft is the same as the -200. Building new 300s with center tanks would probably not be that difficult.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23467 times:
Quoting 76er (Reply 4): Nevertheless, amazing A still manages to tweak the 330, even with the 350 coming ever closer to first flight. Seems the WO330 will see the light of day after all.
That is amazing isn't it?
I guess it is one of the wide-bodies with the greatest difference in performance when she was introduced in 1994 compared to what she might able to do in 2015. And I mean of course that it is still called the A330-300 instead of being another variant of the A330-family.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4115 posts, RR: 39 Reply 10, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23421 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 9): I guess it is one of the wide-bodies with the greatest difference in performance when she was introduced in 1994 compared to what she might able to do in 2015.
Anyone willing to show how an 1994 A330-300 with Trents has evolved into a 2015 A330-300 with Trents in terms of payload, range, SFC etc?
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 218 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23419 times:
Quoting 76er (Reply 6): Yup, all it needs now is the GTF.
[Edited 2012-11-29 01:57:47]
That would be much easier on the A340, due to the smaller size of the engines.
BTW I believe the GTF itself has already flown on a 340 as a test bed.
But as we have already debated in another post, A will not do it.
It would be a too good plane, undermining the 350 project.
So much for the detractors of the 330/340 project
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23300 times:
from the article:
It will give operators of the -300 the option of activating the centre wing fuel tank, a standard feature on the longer-range -200 but one which has remained unused on the larger aircraft.
This will increase the -300's fuel capacity from 97,500 litres to more than 139,000 litres. The modification will include tank inerting.
Airbus hopes the improvements will extend the A330-300's range to 6,100nm by 2015, enabling it to perform westbound flights from south-east Asia to Europe.
==============================
This reads like an Airbus press release and we know how 'sexed up' they are..
It implies that the fuel capacity is increased by over a third, but range only increases 500nm? Also, sounds a bit woolly that 'Airbus HOPES the range will extend to 6,100nm', shouldn't it know that?
This is presumably the Airbus reaction to the B787-10 project. Just because the MTOW is raised a bit doesn't necessarily lead to many new orders as most airlines won't need the extra range. In fact the article states that an MTOW increase to 240t attracted only one customer.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2081 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23184 times:
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 14): Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 3):It is already there, just not used on the -300.
Thanks, never knew it was there at all.
Me neither, I always thought the -200 centre tank was added in the aft cargo hold to give the -200 such a long range. Does that mean that the current A333s are flying around wasted weight having an empty tank they cannot use?
TP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 236 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23101 times:
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12): It implies that the fuel capacity is increased by over a third, but range only increases 500nm? Also, sounds a bit woolly that 'Airbus HOPES the range will extend to 6,100nm', shouldn't it know that?
Actually it s pretty simple to to explain that:
The 6,100nm range is the fully loaded maximum range and its increase is of 500nm because the 333 became, with this change, a MTOW limited design. Now, at full load, you can't take fuel if it pushes the whole weight over 242 T.
Flight Global says that Airbus "hopes" precisely because they aren't issuing an Airbus press release, understood?
RubberJungle From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2010, 300 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22769 times:
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12): It implies that the fuel capacity is increased by over a third, but range only increases 500nm?
The capacity figure is simply an increase in volume, that's all. It increases to the figure given simply by becoming available, but that doesn't mean you can simply fill the entire tank with fuel and jet off.
As I understand it, the tank is probably not a structure in its own right but more a sealing of the unused centre MLG bay built in for the A340, so the added wasted weight is negligible if any at all.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3644 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22525 times:
I would find it very surprising if the A330-300 has been flying arund for almost decades with a fully-fledged centre tank that now, all of a sudden, is rediscovered... Certainly slightly more complicated than that.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 20, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22412 times:
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12): It implies that the fuel capacity is increased by over a third, but range only increases 500nm?
Fill it with fuel and it will go an awfully long way. just don't expect to put much payload in it.
A look at the range/payload chart clearly shows how removing the fuel capacity constraint adds that c. 500Nm whilst still carrying an economic payload.
That was just lost potential before.
Airbus have been long overdue in addressing this IMO. That said, it needed the higher MTOW's to leverage the gain
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12): In fact the article states that an MTOW increase to 240t attracted only one customer.
so far....
The lack of an activated centre tank may have been a key factor in this
Quoting qf340500 (Reply 13): sure there must be one who finds a hair in the soup
Along with the rest of the wig..
Quoting moo (Reply 18): As I understand it, the tank is probably not a structure in its own right but more a sealing of the unused centre MLG bay built in for the A340, so the added wasted weight is negligible if any at all.
If I was a betting man I'd suggest that the "extra" 2t from 240t to 242t is needed to cover off any OEW gain
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1094 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22306 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 19): I would find it very surprising if the A330-300 has been flying arund for almost decades with a fully-fledged centre tank that now, all of a sudden, is rediscovered... Certainly slightly more complicated than that.
From the Airbus Did You Know section on the A330
Quote: The A330-200 and A330-300 are almost identical in all but length. The only two other key differences are that the centre tank is activated for increased fuel capacity and an extended fin and rudder on the A330-200
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22243 times:
Quoting RubberJungle (Reply 17): The capacity figure is simply an increase in volume, that's all. It increases to the figure given simply by becoming available, but that doesn't mean you can simply fill the entire tank with fuel and jet off
Thanks for the explanation.
So basically the stats quoted sound good but mean nothing. More accurately they could have said something like 'This will increase the -300's usable fuel capacity from 97,500 litres to more than 100,000 litres.'?
Tristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3712 posts, RR: 34 Reply 23, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22182 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 18): As I understand it, the tank is probably not a structure in its own right but more a sealing of the unused centre MLG bay built in for the A340, so the added wasted weight is negligible if any at all.
No. The centre tank is the wing centre section where it goes through the fuselage. The structure is there on all A330/340, but is not sealed on the 330-300. It would probably be possible tio activate it by mod action.
The Centre MLG bay is also fitted on all A330/340. This is aft of the centre tank in the undercarriage bay. On the A330 it is just an empty box. This would never be suitable for fuel.
delta88 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21954 times:
Seems Airbus is getting quite serious about fighting back the 787 and Boeings plans for big, long range future airliners! Maybe we'll see more of the A333s now in Boston!! :P
27 BoeingVista: No, it just comes back with the non launch of the 787-10XX Nope probably not but an engine OEM could make an unsolicited proposal, I remember that RR
28 zeke: It would be a lot more than just turning on a switch. The -300 cockpit would need some upgrades (eg adding overhead switches for the centre fuel pump
29 airbazar: They already have the A359 as a competitor to the B7810. I see this has another sign that they won't build the A358. BOS already gets plenty of A333'
30 JerseyFlyer: This will take the capability of the new build freighter further ahead of conversions and position the line well to produce mainly freighters after A3
31 astuteman: It means exactly what it says. The capacity goes up to what it says it does. Which gives the airlines the flexibility to choose how it uses the airfr
32 lightsaber: Now when will the A333 gain winglets/sharklets? That should add another 150nm or so to the range... About time! I'm excited. I do not see the business
33 r2rho: Amazing, the A330 just keeps getting more and more capable... When you look at how this a/c started out in the 90's versus what it is becoming today..
34 Stitch: They're still sending a knife to a gunfight. The 787-10's cabin is 3.5m longer than the A330-300 so at 9-abreast in Economy, the 787-10 will seat sig
35 BoeingVista: Very nice stats but the 787-10 will also cost 3 times as much to buy, the cargo market is in free fall and if it was all about moving the maximum amo
36 Tristarsteve: Boeing has a similar idea. But the inerting system is anything but simple. On both systems the huge filter/sieves that remove the oxygen from the air
37 Stitch: So you feel Airbus will charge $87 million for a 242t A330-300. And they have the balls to accuse Boeing of "predatory pricing". As to cargo, airline
38 MountainFlyer: I don't mean to sound rude, but could someone please tell me why a slightly improved A333 (25 year-old design) is supposed to "kill" the much more mo
39 Flying-Tiger: Actually the current tendency seems more to de-couple freight more and more from the passenger side as the passenger flows are far less reflecting th
40 Stitch: Yes, Airbus will be able to offer better pricing power than Boeing, but over 20 years, operating cost savings and revenue increases can and do overco
41 BoeingVista: Don't roll your eyes buddy, but yes that's exactly the figure I had in mind as Airbus is on record for selling A330's for around that figure and of m
42 r2rho: Some interesting articles on the A330 improvement history (prior to this new MTOW announcement but giving a good overview) http://www.aspireaviation.c
43 seabosdca: I believe this is the point where the A330-300 has become more capable than the original weight A340-300 for all but hot/high missions. (Hasn't quite
44 vfw614: What I meant to say is that apparently the space needed for a central tank is there, but not, as some of the contributions and the term "activate" su
45 Deltalaw: Will be interesting to see which airlines take advantage of this to actually open up new routes.
46 Stitch: A brand-new off the line 235t A330-300 has an average list price of $231 million and an average value of $101 million, so if airlines are indeed payi
47 astuteman: The FI article quotes the 242t A330-200 as gaining another 350Nm beyond the 238t A330-200. - which should put it squarely in 7 500Nm nominal range te
48 Stitch: With a 50t payload, a 257t TOW and CFM56-5C4 engines, the A340-300 can fly 5000nm. With a 45t payload and a 242t TOW, the A330-300X looks to be good
49 parapente: wrong knife... It's the 350 that will take on the -10 They're still sending a knife to a gunfight. The 787-10's cabin is 3.5m longer than the A330-300
50 3rdGen: Here's an idea why don't Airbus strap a couple of those brand new 747-8 engines on the 330? Seriously, how much work would have to be done? Why didn't
51 fcogafa: FG now reporting that AIB claims that while the 787-9's cash operating costs per seat would be 6% lower its direct operating cost per seat will be 7%
52 Scipio: Now that they have bitten the bullet on the center fuel tank, the case for further MTOW increases and sharklets has become a lot stronger. How far wo
53 PlanesNTrains: Were I an LH/LCC such as AirAsia I would definitely be looking at these improved 333's as an alternative to the much more expensive and harder to get
54 par13del: If it was this simple the 767 would still be selling like hotcakes. The increase in size and capacity of the A330 over the 767 was of greater signifi
55 Stitch: So how do Cash Operating and Direct Operating Costs differ for an airline? It would also be helpful to know what formulas Airbus is using to determin
56 lightsaber: I'm must say, this is one of the better a.net discussion for a while. Kudos to everyone for keeping the discussion on the up! I'm still curious how mu
57 Stitch: As the tank is already there, just not sealed and plumbed for use, I would imagine the additional weight would not bee too extreme. It's certainly go
58 MCOflyer: I'd say the RR and PW models will sell more when ordered. Also, I am sure airlines like KLM, Korean, and Malaysia will pick up some. We might even see
59 RickNRoll: If they wanted to do a big jump in MTOW, could they just put the undercarriage in there?
60 KC135TopBoom: Yes as the space is currently not usable, but the structures are still there. So, about 9,432 US gallons more fuel to go another 500 nm? That is abou
61 Roseflyer: Will this make the A330-300 like the A330-200 in that they cannot be dispatched with full tanks? If I remember correctly, the A330-200 has so much fue
62 RickNRoll: There is a lot more fuel capacity, you won't be able to use much of it. The tanks already there, so making that capacity available is not a waste of
63 zeke: It is nothing about predatory pricing, Airbus has paid the A330/A340 R&D all off, all the really have to cover is the cost of manufacture, the wi
64 vaus77w: I have a question- how high in MTOW can the A330 go without adding an extra set of MLG wheels (like the A340 has)? Given the 343 has a MTOW of 257T,
65 StickShaker: I think what BoeingVista was saying is that Airbus have the ability to offer such discounts - but they would only do so when necessary which will no
66 mffoda: There was this piece a while back about what Nepal Airlines was paying for their A330. The quote below shows what Airbus was selling them an A330 &am
67 katanapilot: for those, like me, that don't know what a GTF is and get annoyed by people that use industry acronyms without explanation, i googled it and it's a Ge
68 motorhussy: It's in pretty common aviation parlance these days, even for armchair airline CEO's like myself. Not sure if anyone posted this link... http://www.fl
69 BoeingVista: I agree that sales of the A330 will fall but we really should have expected that fall to have occurred already. What I think is going on with Airbus
70 astuteman: Not sure why you're checkmarking this. The 240t variant has been on sale for a whole 4 months..... That it has secured one order in that timeframe te
71 RubberJungle: No, it doesn't. It says CIT is a customer. It doesn't say it's the only one.
72 EPA001: It is always nice to read about the facts with the correct perspective. . You are (as usual) so right of course.
73 swallow: I like Scott Hamilton's summary of the 333 vs. 7810 battle Boeing claims the 787-10 will “kill” the A330-300. The market agrees–but only by the
74 JerseyFlyer: Adding the A340 centre MLG should be simple and the wing should be good for the extra weight. But why? It then starts to compete with the A350 and wi
75 Stitch: They likely would have if the 787 hadn't taken an extra three years to come to market and some five years to reach the original 18-month delivery goa
76 lightsaber: You are correct, but the range improvements will push the 787 to 9 across as the revenue gain of a 787 in 8 across versus an A330 in 8 across is marg
77 zeke: I cannot add much to the discussion on the CLG except o say with the gear deactivated in the stowed position on the A340 MTOW is limited to 230t. The
78 astuteman: The original A350 was going to be 245 tonnes. I'd feel comfortable with that being within reach of the A330. Beyond that, who knows? Rgds
79 Aquila3: That in general is a testimonial of how good in general was the early design. They let a lot of margin for improvement and flexibility for changes. A
80 lightsaber: Interesting... However, that is with a very different engine out profile, so the A330 will have a lower MTOW than 280t. Concur on 245t possible. I th
81 Stitch: Could be a future Weight Variant. Airbus went to 573t with WV006 on the A380, even though they knew they could go to 575t. And a year later, so they
82 astuteman: I can only presume it's a "hanging fruit" thing - i.e. 242t was relatively simple compared to something greater. Rgds
83 Scipio: I don't understand. As per FI, the 242t variant without sharklets will have a range of 6,100 NM. Surely, range should go up with sharklets and an add
84 ferpe: It checked my model for the 333 on the Dec 2011 ACAP, it tracked close to it's 233t MTOW (175t MZFW, 130t OEW) Payload-Range chart, I then adjusted it
85 ferpe: You always need a center wingbox, this is where you attach the wings (and not in the side-of-body as the US expression leads you to believe, the cent
86 BoeingVista: There is another thread running about HA increasing flights to Australia, a thought occurs that with a 242t MTOW A330-200 HA could fly a reasonable p
87 JerseyFlyer: So - OEW increases 2t and MTOW increases 2t from 240 to 242. The gain is in the flexibility created by the potential to carry more fuel at the expens
88 ferpe: Here it is, the chart compares the 330-200 (pink and red curve) and the -300 (blue curves) before and after the upgrade (click on the chart to see be
89 Revelation: The article in the thread starter mentions these things will be made available with new builds starting in 2015. It'll be interesting to see if/when
90 bjorn14: My fav Long Haul a/c is the -200 variant but I can't wait for the 359-R.
91 ferpe: There is an article about the upgrade on AW now as well (sorry if it was already posted, couldn't find it): http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....d_1
92 lightsaber: Agreed. This is the advantage of FBW. It is also far more economical to update an aircraft's software build than any hardware change. I can see it no
93 mffoda: "Software only helps if the basic mechanics are done right" I guess they should selected P&W instead of GE / RR engines if they wanted the basic m
94 lightsaber: Pratt has botched too many engines for anyone to trust them with an exclusive: PW4198, PW4173 (not PW4170A), and the infamous PW6000. Pratt had offer
95 mffoda: Lightsaber... Wow...Wow, I almost spit out my beer (sorry... "Bier" for my German friends). It was truly just poking some fun at a statement... I kno
96 JoeCanuck: Thanks for your charts. They're better than Coles notes for those of us too lazy to work it out ourselves.
97 lightsaber: Nyet! I have given up caffeine. For those that know me, it confuses them for I used to start my day with a POT of coffee! "Hello, I'm lightsaber and
98 Aquila3: So for the 787 was too early, for the A340 sadly it is too late (as we have said in older threads). So this bring the real question. Which plane woul
99 zeke: The ranges quoted by the OEMs are for passengers only, if you want to carry a realistic payload with pax and cargo, you will need to trade range for
100 LH707330: You would get a killer CASM for that set up....
101 Scipio: Thanks for the clarification. Very useful. Still, it would also be useful to know what the range would be on a standardized passengers-only basis. My
102 tdscanuck: I've been 1 cup a morning for years. The cup, however, has grown considerably in that time.
103 BoeingVista: Yes Ferpe, thanks for the charts If I'm interpreting them correctly for HA a flight from HNL-LHR that is approx 6500nm including reserve fuel with a
104 ferpe: It only buys you some 70-100nm, the wing is slender and has a high effective aspect ratio (10.5) even with todays winglets. It is the equivalent of o
105 astuteman: As a side note, in this article linked in the QR A350-1000 thread, Airbus are looking to increase the rate of A330 production from 9.5 per month today
106 JoeCanuck: It makes sense to keep offering something that is actually selling rather than cutting it's life short arbitrarily. The 330 is guaranteed money in th
107 packsonflight: What would that kind of undertaking include? Is it possible that they could go for "light" version of wing and center wing box, with a bit less span.
108 lastrow: Where did you get the numbers from? They are remarkably precise! Just a question to this regard: My understanding is that the winglets of the A330/34
109 RickNRoll: Airbus won't be selling the A330 to make a loss, but the cash turnover in a financially struggling world would be enough reason to keep the sales up e
110 Flying-Tiger: Certainly - and there is one aspect to it to be considered as well: the more birds you put into the market the more likely is it that you´ll have de
111 TP313: That would not be enough, regarding weight cutting. beside a scaled down wing and a new wing box it would require: - New, lighter landing gear. - Sca
112 r2rho: The strategy is clear: pour out as many A330's as they can while Boeing still works down the 787 backlog. The A330 and A32x families are the ones pay
113 airbazar: But that would destroy its aesthetics
114 ferpe: I get them from running the 333 in my aircraft drag/performance model with the present winglet and the sharklets. So how do I know all this stuff? I
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1094 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1489 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2010, 300 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 412 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 153 posts, 
From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 171 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4115 posts, 
From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 218 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2081 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 236 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3614 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3712 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2009, 41 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
