Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18586 times:

Tony Fernandes has made the following ( almost inflammatory ) statements in Twitter :


" The A330neo would be “a great plane” and a “perfect combination” with the A350-900. “I want that plane. Airbus don’t get it ." “I honestly don’t think the A350-800 is a good plane"

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine.../air-asia-chief-calls-a330neo-0123

Anyone with him on this one ????

G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18565 times:

His airline is too successful for me to second-guess him.


Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18476 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Anyone with him on this one ????

Many of us had said the same. Canceling the original A350 in favor of a new A350 that only addressed the A330 as an afterthought didn't make a lot of sense. But Airbus didn't want to go up directly against the 787, instead hoping to attack the 777 from below and the 787 from above.

But had Airbus instead canceled the original A350 in favor of an A330NEO + A359/10 it would have made more sense. The A330NEO would be in service already with GEnx bleed and likely T1000 bleed versions and 7000-7500nm range, hurting the 787 badly considering all the problems and delays, and the A350 could be squarely focused on the the 777 rather than trying to also worry about the 789.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9836 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18431 times:

The A350-800 has a 15% higher payload than the A330. Airbus was looking at targeting the 777 rather than the 787 capacity with the airplane. In order to get the A350-1000 to come close to the 77W, they had to push up the weights from where the A330 is at. The result is that the A350-800 will not have that good of fuel burn numbers compared to an A330-300 or a 787. I think Airbus consciously made the decision to do this since the 787 had captured so many orders and taken such a large section of the market. By going higher in MTOW, they separated themselves from being a direct 767 & A330 replacement. If an airline wants higher payload, more range and more capacity, then the A350 is great.

If Air Asia is interested in an ideal A330 replacement without going up in size and performance, then they could always order the 787. However we know that Air Asia is interested in Airbus, so I’m not surprised to see them pushing for an efficient 787 competitor.

The problem is, I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO since all it would do is take orders away from the A350 or compete heavily on price with the 787 which is likely a better airplane. The revenue potential from an A330 NEO is low. It would steal orders from the A350 which doesn’t help the bottom line and not be a particularly effective competitor to Boeing. The CEO can ask for what he wants, but I doubt he’ll get it.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Air Asia X doesn't need the 15,000 to 16,000km nominal range of the A350-800. The A350-800 also slots between the A330-200 and A330-300 in terms of available cabin floor area, yet offers only 2 more LD3 positions than the A332 and 4 less than the A333.

I do not believe the A350-800 OEW has been confirmed, but I've seen credible estimates of ~130t. That is 10t more than the A330-300 and 13t more than the A330-200 (all figures using Airbus OEM OEW). That being said, Airbus claims it will burn 23% less fuel per seat (at 270 seats) than the A330-200 will (at 240 seats). Considering Air Asia X seats 268 in their A330-200, I would expect their A350-800 to be well over 300 seats.

If he's carping about he A350-800, I would think he'd also be carping about the A350-900 (which he has on order). He does not need that plane's range, either, and it's some 20t heavier than the A330-300 with about 7% more cabin area (allowing one extra seat per row in Economy) and 4 additional LD3 positions.

[Edited 2013-01-23 13:58:37]

User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 18109 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Considering Air Asia X seats 268 in their A330-200

They don't have any 330-200. The 333 seats about 377 from memory.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 18011 times:

Quoting col (Reply 5):
They don't have any 330-200. The 333 seats about 377 from memory.

At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12900 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17968 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
The A330NEO would be in service already with GEnx bleed and likely T1000 bleed versions and 7000-7500nm range, hurting the 787 badly considering all the problems and delays

And yet, without spending a penny on the mythical A330neo, Airbus has somehow managed to sell 600 A330s since the 787 was launched.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17892 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.

They ordered 3, two were canx from memory and one is becoming a VIP A/C? They have since ordered more 333's. They were initially ordered to do Europe, but that program was canx. They also had GE engines.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 17613 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 7):
And yet, without spending a penny on the mythical A330neo, Airbus has somehow managed to sell 600 A330s since the 787 was launched.

I'm sure Boeing was saying the same thing in the 90s about the A330...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8776 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 17594 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
The problem is, I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO since all it would do is take orders away from the A350 or compete heavily on price with the 787 which is likely a better airplane.

Articulate statement. The A330 has been so good for Airbus. So much volume in that segment. Do they really want to give it all up? It would be great to see them spend a little money and dial in hard against the 787. Hasn't the A330 earned that courtesy? Maybe not...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 17570 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO...

In addition to Airbus, I see little interest from the engine manufacturers.

The Trent 700 is already the powerplant of choice on the A330, so why would RR spend money resurrecting the Trent 1700?

GE demands a strong RoI before they will build an engine, so they'd demand exclusivity before they resurrected the GEnx-1A72.

Pratt can only offer the GTF and after the PW6000 (A318) and PW8000 (A340 Superfan) issues, I expect Airbus would not be comfortable with choosing an engine that needs to scale by a factor of three in terms of power above what it's currently planned to operate at.


User currently offlineairbusa322 From Australia, joined Apr 2009, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 17331 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.

Looks like it needs to be updated. They cancelled the A332 small order.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 11781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
The result is that the A350-800 will not have that good of fuel burn numbers compared to an A330-300 or a 787

I don't know how this continues to quietly become A-net fact,when it is eminently possible that it will have a pretty competitive fuel burn.

Whilst accepting that he is absolutely not the gospel, in this thread

Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops)

at the bottom in post # 65, Ferpe calculates specific Breguet air ranges in nm/tonne of fuel of

95.9 Nm/tonne for the 787-8
90.9 Nm/tonne for the A350-800
88.6 Nm/tonne for the 787-9

Again, he's not a gospel, but his model is pretty well thought out and critiqued in the thread.

The numbers indicate the 787-8 having a 5% fuel burn advantage over the A350-800 and the A350-800 having a 2% fuel burn advantage over the 787-9

As the A350-800 sits neatly in-between the 787-8 and 787-9 in terms of capacity, then it shouldn't be too far away from being competitive.
Is it over-engineered in its current form, and therefore not optimised?
Almost certainly.

My view is
a) The A350-800's biggest problem in its current form is the A350-900
b) that should Airbus ever get round to "optimising" the A350-800 as it was originally intended, it should be eminently competitive.
I could be wrong though ..  

Rgds


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2260 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 10573 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
GE demands a strong RoI before they will build an engine

Everyone does, not just GE.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
they'd demand exclusivity before they resurrected the GEnx-1A72.

Why not a slight thrust bump on the existing GEnx-2B67? Or does that also degenerate into a nine-figure engineering effort?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
The numbers indicate the 787-8 having a 5% fuel burn advantage over the A350-800 and the A350-800 having a 2% fuel burn advantage over the 787-9

These numbers must be adjusted by the seating capacity to obtain an apples-to-apples comparison of fuel burn per seat mile. The A358 and 789 are significantly larger than the 788. In the end it's basically a wash, so your point stands that the A358 is a fine player at least on paper.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9306 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
Whilst accepting that he is absolutely not the gospel

absolutely not, but as OldAeroGuy would say "it is better then handwaving"  . As I can make an A330neo in 5 minutes I made one       and pitted against the A350-800 and the others on a 5500nm ESAD leg:





The fuel flow is the average fuel flow on the leg, the fuel per pax or more correct per m2 take it per 1000nm and you have 41 vs 45kg in the -800 favor over a 333neo. For those that think I have a to heavy A333 realize that the 120t OEW was a long time ago, it is more like 125t today and that 2 GEnx-2B67 ads 4t to the OEW. I added the sharklets as well (did not increase the OEW for them). The 242t spec range goes to 6500nm for a 333neo.

So there you have it within say 3-5%, now your comments if it will be worth it.



Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4991 posts, RR: 41
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9255 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
As I can make an A330neo in 5 minutes I made one

You are too kind!   

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
So there you have it within say 3-5%, now your comments if it will be worth it.

A very compelling overview which to me is close enough to discuss about. So the A330-NEO is quite good, but at this range of your example, can not beat the A350-800. Of course on shorter routes the picture might look slightly different again, but this is highly informative.  .


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9047 times:

Thank you Ferpe
I think that the Genx2b are not so heavy

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hnical-description-cutaway-378866/

4% more that is : 70100 lbs et 60840 lbs resp for take off and maximum continuous

For comparison

T772C-60: 71 100 / 63 560 / poids 11653 lbs (without reverse : 1800 lbs)
PW4170 : 70 000 / 59 357 / poids 12 888 lbs (without reverse : 1716 lbs)
CF6-80E1: 68 530 / 60 400 / poids 12 337 lbs (without reverse: 1550 lbs)

On the EASA TCDS, the GenX is 12400 lbs
So how 2 GenX2b can be 4t heavier ?
The GenX as a larger fan, a smaller core, a composite fan and fan belt....low stage count vs the Gen1B... so I think it's not that heavy.
I might totally wrong indeed... just tell me

And the Genx2b is not going to sell by thousands... and it will be a slow seller... 2 747-8 per month...is 4 A330 per month engine wise... and i'm pretty sure that an A330NEO will sell more than 4 per month et for the next 8-10 years...

Can you give us the A330-300 figures in its 242 t current engine form ? and 787-10 figures also ?
What about sharklets only ? A330 ?

Thank you


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8704 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 17):
So how 2 GenX2b can be 4t heavier ?

It is not, I found the wrong figures, the GEnx-2B67 weighs 5626kg and the T700 4785kg. So that diff + a larger nacelle and a longer pylon (fan is 105'' instead of 97'', you need to hang the engine higher/longer forward) + sharlets and wing reinforcement makes for some 2.9t extra. For the 333sl I have assumed 2*300 kg extra as we now compare with 333 classic  as well, for the neo the sharklets only load with 200kg as they can share the reinforcements with the engines. Voila:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/330neovs3583597887897810_zps90e6f775.jpg

You gain some 1.5-2 % by going to sharklets.

[Edited 2013-01-26 00:12:29]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8685 times:

The GEnx2 is about 12% more efficient than the comparable CF6-80 engine..low hanging fruit IMO, it will get PIPed soon and get a thrust boost for the freighter.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8629 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
I think Airbus consciously made the decision to do this since the 787 had captured so many orders and taken such a large section of the market.

If they had done it, I bet that a good half of 787 customers would have canceled their 787 orders by now and ordered A330NEO models.


User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8259 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wonder if a protracted grounding of the 787 will tip the balance either ways - 330 neo vs optimised 358? Your thoughts?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting india1 (Reply 21):
Wonder if a protracted grounding of the 787 will tip the balance either ways - 330 neo vs optimised 358? Your thoughts?

Such a grounding would have to go years and even then, the EIS delay of both the A330neo and optimized A350-800 would be such that the majority of customers who did cancel and seek replacement lift would have chosen A330s, 767s and 777s.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7898 times:

So what is the verdict, can a 333neo replace a A350-800? To answer that one should perhaps also need the A330-200neo, I therefore did another 5 min design job    and here it is (click on the table to see better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/333neo332neovs3583597887897810_zps7e4af6b8.jpg


As can be seen the A350-800 in a 130t empty weight version is almost on the 789 level of fuel burn per pax/cabin area, the 333neo is 15% worse and the 332neo 20% worse. Calculate the normal way and the 358 is 13 and 16% better then the 330neos. The OEW of the 350-800 I have put at 130t ie a 1t per cut meter of fuselage length. This is plausible for a DA frame which is a "cut and shut" shrink, ie nothing else gets reduced except for the fuselage length and some of the affected panels. Drive the optimization further to the typical 1.5t per changed meter and you are equal to the 789 in efficiency, more one can not ask for as the 358 flies 1 hour longer.


The A350-800 has become the present discussions ugly duckling, to a minor extent it deserves it but I venture that 95% of those who rhyme in have not done the numbers, they all assume someone else have and go along. I think people like HAL have done their numbers and for their needs a 350-800 that hits the spec and runs the long legs is a very good choice. The problem of the 358 is that the 359 is even better and come earlier, that is why people change if they have the loadfactors.

edit: did include the payload in the new table, it is the spec one I use ie nominal full mixed cabin with bags.

[Edited 2013-01-26 10:08:39]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7883 times:

What engine does your A330neo have Ferpe?

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7943 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
What engine does your A330neo have Ferpe?


The GEnx-2B67, it is a modern bleed engine with a reasonable size fan (105'' or 0.12m larger radius then the 97'' fans the 330 has today) weighs "only" 5626kg and is close to the right thrust bracket, 70klbf.



Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4991 posts, RR: 41
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 25):
105'' or 0.12m larger radius then the 97'' fans the 330 has today)

If the difference is 8 inches in diameter, then in metrics that should be 0.23 meters.  


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

Something is amiss with your method. The numbers just don't seem right. The A330 looks like a dog by these numbers but in service it is not.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 14
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
Something is amiss with your method. The numbers just don't seem right. The A330 looks like a dog by these numbers but in service it is not.

I would hope the 787 and A350 are more efficient than the A330!!

A has said the A358 is @20% more efficient than the A332 and that seems in the ballpark for the numbers ferpe crunched


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7857 times:

A A330 with 12% more efficient engines... Yeah I buy those numbers..

User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7702 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
It is not, I found the wrong figures, the GEnx-2B67 weighs 5626kg and the T700 4785kg. So that diff + a larger nacelle and a longer pylon (fan is 105'' instead of 97'', you need to hang the engine higher/longer forward) + sharlets and wing reinforcement makes for some 2.9t extra. For the 333sl I have assumed 2*300 kg extra as we now compare with 333 classic as well, for the neo the sharklets only load with 200kg as they can share the reinforcements with the engines. Voila:

Thank you Ferpe
I was just pointing that the GenX is not that heavier than the heaviest of the 3 engine that are currently powering the A330... there's a 2 t gap between the lightest and the heaviest i think.
So GenX might not be so hard to mount under the A330 wing.

Don't you think that sharklets can help with a higher initial FL on A330 ?

A330NEO won't replace A350-800 based on fuel burn analysis only...
What the A330 is becoming a bargain... and what the A330NEO must be is also a bargain

One difficult task for airbus will be the transition from A330 to A350 on the current A330 FAL. How many A330 FAL's are there ? One I think... And this one was planned to become the 2nd A350 line as you mentioned... Considering the differences in assembling the A330 and the A350 ... I think it's not possible to jump from one model to the other at short notice...
I guess i need to dig in the Airbus GMF in order to have widebodies throughput estimates...


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7571 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 26):
If the difference is 8 inches in diameter, then in metrics that should be 0.23 meters.


Sure , half stick up in front of the wing and half reduces ground clearance, the latter was my point.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
Something is amiss with your method. The numbers just don't seem right. The A330 looks like a dog by these numbers but in service it is not.

The numbers are in the ballpark. GE has engines on the 330 ( CF6-80C2E ) and also makes the GEnx, they state the GEnx1 (787 111'') is 15% better, the 108'' GEnx2 looses you 2%, net 13% improvement but the larger nacelle drag looses you 1% more, net 12% gain from new engines. Finally the higher weight steals you about 0.5% per tonne and about 0.5 hour flight time.

There is a reason JL says they will not neo the 330.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 30):
Don't you think that sharklets can help with a higher initial FL on A330 ?

Don*t think so, initial FL is a wingloading issue, therefore the longer effective wingspan does not help really. Further the 7t increase in MTOW drives in the other direction if anything  Silly .

[Edited 2013-01-26 15:28:19]


Non French in France
User currently onlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7421 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
The A330NEO would be in service already with GEnx bleed and likely T1000 bleed versions and 7000-7500nm range, hurting the 787 badly considering all the problems and delays, and the A350 could be squarely focused on the the 777 rather than trying to also worry about the 789.



You and everyone else seem to forget one very important thing when you make comments about an A330NEO. The engines weren't really ready at the time.

Had Airbus launched the A330NEO then, it would not have been as competitive as an A330NEO launched today due to the amount of improvements both RR and GE have been able to make to their engines due to the delays in the 787 program. And even with the 3.5 years extra they got from intended EIS to actual EIS (2008-Late 2011), both engine were still missing their targets by multiple percentages. Rolls Royce will be sending out Package C engines in the near future and GEnx -1b's are on PiP 2 as well, and only then will they be meeting/exceeding original targets.

I just cant see an A330NEO launched in the same time frame as the A350 Mk I being that much better than an old A330 to cause a big shift to happen away from the 787. The RR Trent 1000 wasn't even certified until 7-8-07 so at the very earliest they wouldn't have been able to start delivering until the same year 787's were. Also considering, nobody knew the 787 was going to be delayed like it was, why would they order a plane that might get you 5-10% fuel savings when you could order a plane giving 20% fuel savings in the same time frame?



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 30):

Thank you Ferpe
I was just pointing that the GenX is not that heavier than the heaviest of the 3 engine that are currently powering the A330... there's a 2 t gap between the lightest and the heaviest i think.
So GenX might not be so hard to mount under the A330 wing.

Thanks Poncho, I initially did not check the weights other then the most popular T700 as that is the one model being by far the most popular engine on the 330. As said it is at 4785kg, the CF6-80E at 5063kg and the PW4168 at 5625kg. The engine weight for the PW and the GEnx-2B is thereby about the same, you still have a larger nacelle and a higher more forward position however.

As my OEW is for the T700 (I checked TK for the DOW and put down my OEW based on that and they use T700, I can imagine the lower OEW being one big reason as the T700 is not the lowest TSFC) I would still have to increase it for the GEnx-2 with the amount I did. You are right re the reinforcements for increased weight but the new position and sharklets reinforcements remains. If you want to improve the fuel burn you get around 0,5% for each 1t change in OEW for this class of DA frames, it is a good rule of thumb to remember, I just verified it once again.



Non French in France
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6989 times:

Thank
Last batch off A330 at THY due to be delivered this yeat are CF6 powered
http://www.geaviation.com/press/cf6/cf6_20121119.html
SO we will see the weight delta.

But current one are T700

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...-begins-taking-delivery-a330s-0929


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 32):
You and everyone else seem to forget one very important thing when you make comments about an A330NEO. The engines weren't really ready at the time. Had Airbus launched the A330NEO then, it would not have been as competitive as an A330NEO launched today due to the amount of improvements both RR and GE have been able to make to their engines due to the delays in the 787 program

Even with the SFC miss, the 787's engines were a step change in SFC. That would have held equally true for the old A350.
It would still have been dramatically better than the current A330 and proper competitor to the 787

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 32):
Also considering, nobody knew the 787 was going to be delayed like it was, why would they order a plane that might get you 5-10% fuel savings when you could order a plane giving 20% fuel savings in the same time frame?

The old A350 should have provided about a 12% improvement in fuel burn over the A330. The fuel burn delta between the 787-8 and the A330-200 is about 16%.
The fuel burn delta between the 787 and old A350 would have been small enough to bring other factors into play.
The old A350 is undersold on here by about the same amount as the a350-800XWB is....

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 30):
One difficult task for airbus will be the transition from A330 to A350 on the current A330 FAL. How many A330 FAL's are there ?

I suspect there is an output volume advantage for Airbus in delivering A330's and A350XWB's side by side. certainly for the next 4 or 5 years.
Not something we expected back in 2005  

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6952 times:

Maybe it really needs a new lighter wing to carry those GEnx2bs? IMO the A358 is too much airplane compared to the A332, how good is the A358 with 220-230 seats as that would be more normal for the current A332?

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25710 posts, RR: 85
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
But had Airbus instead canceled the original A350 in favor of an A330NEO + A359/10 it would have made more sense.

The great complaint at the time was that the original A350 was "just" a souped up A330 - and most everyone here and elsewhere crapped all over it.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 31):
The numbers are in the ballpark

Something doesn't scan right though.
You have the block fuel burn difference between the 787-8 and a330-200 as 25% (67.2t vs 54.1t).
It is nowhere remotely near that. IMO it should be nearer 16%
Unless I've read your figures wrongly.

Rgds


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6932 times:

Ferpe, I always appreciate your charts when such questions come up.

I wonder why the A330 performs so poorly in comparison. What other changes would be needed to make it competitive with the 787? A new, CFRP wing, perhaps? Al-Li panels?


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6950 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):

As the A330 is lighter than the A350 it must mostly be aerodynamics and fuel burn. Maybe the old wing of alu is not ideal compared to the cfrp wing of the latest design on the A350?

Another benefit of the GEnx2b would be noise, having compared the 744 with the 748 it is clear how much better the GEnx is compared to CF60-80 on noise.


User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6883 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 37):

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
But had Airbus instead canceled the original A350 in favor of an A330NEO + A359/10 it would have made more sense.

The great complaint at the time was that the original A350 was "just" a souped up A330 - and most everyone here and elsewhere crapped all over it.

Yes, and as I recall, the airlines actually buying airplanes, not us sit-at-home-speculators, complained that it was just a 330 redux, and they wanted a larger capacity frame, hence the 350XWB..extra wide body.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25710 posts, RR: 85
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6886 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 41):
Yes, and as I recall, the airlines actually buying airplanes, not us sit-at-home-speculators, complained that it was just a 330 redux, and they wanted a larger capacity frame, hence the 350XWB..extra wide body.

200 of the original were sold, which ain't a bad start.

The ferocity of the campaign against the original A350 had more to do with "the drug like rush of the 787" than anything else.

I don't recall Stephen Udvar-Hazy wanting a wider body in his denunciation of the aircraft (the original A350) at Istat. He may have done so, but he didn't seem thrilled - originally - by the wider body of the XWB.

mariner

[Edited 2013-01-27 02:19:10]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6652 times:

The original A350, with its new wing, it Al-li fuse and its GenX would have been, according to airbus, 8 t lighter than the corresponding A330 and with the very same footprint (Wings counted for 4.5 t weight gain)

That's what is missing for the A330NEO to be a true 787 competitor... i think... 8 t is 4% fuel burn gain according to Ferpe

The more I think, the more the A350XWB appears as a very ahrd to beat allrounder airplane


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

Possibly Airbus is planning on launching all new aircraft bridging the gap between the 321 and the 330-200 after they finish with the 350.
This would be scaled down A350 (not a shrink down) or a 350 lite pitched at the 5000nm market, kind of a low cost, low risk recycling of the 350 concept. What else are they doing with the army of engineers they have after the A400 and the A350-10 is finished?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13233 posts, RR: 36
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6463 times:

Quote:
What else are they doing with the army of engineers they have after the A400 and the A350-10 is finished?

There is plenty of potential work left after the A350-1000 EIS in 2017. For example:

- studying the A350-900R (if ultra long haul still makes sense by then)
- launching and building the A380-900
- studying an A320 successor



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6258 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 45):
Quote:
What else are they doing with the army of engineers they have after the A400 and the A350-10 is finished?

There is plenty of potential work left after the A350-1000 EIS in 2017. For example:

- studying the A350-900R (if ultra long haul still makes sense by then)
- launching and building the A380-900
- studying an A320 successor

The A330 will become a hard sell once the B787 and A350 programs are fully up to speed, i.e., sometime in the latter half of this decade. It is too late to launch an A330NEO -- too much investment to produce an aircraft that will not have any durable competitive edge and will be too close to the A350 in terms of performance.

I have long held the view that Airbus should consider an all-new proper A300/A310/A330 successor to complement the A350 in its product range, aiming at competitive advantages that are clearly differentiated from those of the A350. I see this as a light-weight wide-body, seating 250-300 passengers, that is uncompromisingly optimized for short-to-medium haul routes. I would also engineer it for good field performance, to allow it to fly into airports that don't usually see widebody service.

Such an aircraft could be derived from the A350, but may not need the XWB cross-section. A cross-section similar to, or slightly wider than, the current A330 may be more optimal (in particular considering cargo space), with 8-abreast standard and 9-abreast high-density seating. The 9-abreast configuration should be a bit more comfortable than on the current A330, though.

2015 would be a good time to launch such a product, given the projected availability of engineering resources at Airbus. This would allow EIS in the early-2020's, when production of the A330 will probably be winding down and many airlines will be looking to replace their A330 fleets (as well as some early-built B787s).

Such an aircraft may appeal to Mr. Fernandes, as it would be optimal for a lot of intra-Asian routes (including Chinese and Indian domestic routes).


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days ago) and read 6072 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 46):

It would have to be a gap up to the A358, a slightly smaller A332 made out of Al-Li, cfrp wing, state of the art engines, upgrade what is feasable on the current A330, make it a 230-240 seater and give it the maximum range of 10-11 hours. That way the A358 would not have to cover the lower part of the market which it is ill suited to do. Even if the A358 would be a poor seller, it might be good as a freighter and ULR plane, sort of like the 77L/F.


User currently offlinefruitbat From United Kingdom, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 552 posts, RR: 6
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days ago) and read 6026 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 46):

Finally the voice of sanity in this thread!! 

I firmly believe that an A330neo won't happen because its too late, too expensive, won't make money for A or the engine company (logic says it has to be sole source). Making a bleedless engine into a bleed engine is a touch more complex than drilling a few holes in the casing, the GEnX on the 747-8 hasn't got the capability (subtle hint: look at the Trent 700 hot high performance and explain to me how the GEnX gets there?)

It's Fernandez adopting the Ryanair / Qatar / Emirates negotiaton tactics: moan publicly then behind closed doors do a big deal at low OE cost.

Airbus believe the A358 is the right aeroplane for the "small" wide body (A330, 767, A340) replacement market, assuming that the global economy grows over the next decade rather than shrinks. Boeing believe the answer is the 788 / 789. The market will tell us who is right; the big A330 replacement battles are yet to be fought.

A good question is what will Airbus do next? An optimised 250 seater as described by Scipio above or a 400 seater to fill the gap between the A350-1000 and the A388? But IMO it won't be an A330neo.



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5956 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 46):
I have long held the view that Airbus should consider an all-new proper A300/A310/A330 successor to complement the A350 in its product range, aiming at competitive advantages that are clearly differentiated from those of the A350. I see this as a light-weight wide-body, seating 250-300 passengers, that is uncompromisingly optimized for short-to-medium haul routes. I would also engineer it for good field performance, to allow it to fly into airports that don't usually see widebody service.

Everyone keeps on bringing up the idea of a new medium-haul optimized widebody and yet nobody seems to be doing it. Even the 787-3 never made it off the drawing board.

Could it be that airlines are willing to pay a weight penalty to have more flexibility in their aircraft?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5944 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
Something doesn't scan right though.
You have the block fuel burn difference between the 787-8 and a330-200 as 25% (67.2t vs 54.1t).
It is nowhere remotely near that. IMO it should be nearer 16%

Thanks, I'll check it up. The excel is really large and as I run these different checks I have to change values to fit the trip at hand, I go over it and see what I find, stay posted  .



Non French in France
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5850 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 47):
It would have to be a gap up to the A358

Not necessarily. It could be about the same size as the current A330, with two similarly-sized versions. The key is that it would be designed for very different missions than the A358.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
Even the 787-3 never made it off the drawing board.

The B787-3 was not an optimized short-to-medium range plane. It was a clipped long-range plane.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
Could it be that airlines are willing to pay a weight penalty to have more flexibility in their aircraft?

To some extent, yes. Airlines have been seeking aircraft that could do more and more. However, that process is reaching its limits now that the latest generation of widebodies can connect almost any two points in the world and fuel costs have become so prohibitive.

Hence, I think the focus will shift / is shifting to getting the right aircraft for the right mission. I read Fernandes' comments as part of this trend...


User currently onlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 35):

But we are not talking about the old a350's we are talking about the A330 being fitted with the new engines, and pretty much just new engines. As in the A330Lite airbus was originally planning before deciding on the original A350 design...



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5861 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 51):
The B787-3 was not an optimized short-to-medium range plane. It was a clipped long-range plane.

BUT... it was superior to the 788 on short-to-medium haul flights. Yet the airlines must have decided that the decrease in operating costs did not balance out the loss of flexibility.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 51):
To some extent, yes. Airlines have been seeking aircraft that could do more and more. However, that process is reaching its limits now that the latest generation of widebodies can connect almost any two points in the world and fuel costs have become so prohibitive.

It seems as if the sweet spot with current technology is within the 7-8,000) NMi range. That has been the long-haul standard since the 744. There have been longer-range planes, but they are less efficient.

I would argue that if Airbus is going to build an A300-A330 replacement, they should go for 787-style range. They can use their NSR platform for medium-haul.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5821 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
Everyone keeps on bringing up the idea of a new medium-haul optimized widebody and yet nobody seems to be doing it. Even the 787-3 never made it off the drawing board.

That is because the 787-3 never was a medium-haul optimized widebody. It was to heavy and the range was to short.
I am talking about an aircraft that could be much lighter and with smaller wing than the 787 because it does not have to carry nearly as much fuel.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
Could it be that airlines are willing to pay a weight penalty to have more flexibility in their aircraft?

As the price of fuel escalates, the price you pay for the flexibility gets higher and in the end it is not economical any more. Already we are seeing the single type stragedy loosing popularity for the same reason

This makes a lot of sense for Airbus I think because of the future gap in offering from the 321 to the 350-800 when the 330 segment will gradually be taken over by the 787


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 52):
But we are not talking about the old a350's we are talking about the A330 being fitted with the new engines, and pretty much just new engines. As in the A330Lite airbus was originally planning before deciding on the original A350 design...

This proposed aircraft could be the reason why Airbus is not interested in putting new engines on the 330


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5799 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
Everyone keeps on bringing up the idea of a new medium-haul optimized widebody and yet nobody seems to be doing it. Even the 787-3 never made it off the drawing board.

Could it be that airlines are willing to pay a weight penalty to have more flexibility in their aircraft?
Quoting Scipio (Reply 51):
The B787-3 was not an optimized short-to-medium range plane. It was a clipped long-range plane.

Personally, I think DocLightning's suggestion is the correct one.

As much as people disparage it, the 767-400ER is an excellent medium-range, medium-capacity platform. DL's 767-400ER and A330-200 have similar passenger and cargo (hold volume) capacity and the 767-400ER is at least 10 tons lighter in DOW. And yet the A330-200 has crushed the 767-400ER in sales. Why?

On the one hand, it's more flexible. Both can lift 47t, but the A330-200 can fly it ~5000nm whereas the 767-400ER can only carry it 3700nm. On the other hand, even being significantly heavier than the 767-400ER, the greater span and wing area of the A330-200 makes it about as efficient as the 767-400ER. So you get more performance for not much more operating cost.

We saw the same with the 787-3 vs. 787-8: the shorter span meant that the 787-3's economics were only advantageous out to about 250nm. Even for the Japanese domestic market, this was of no real benefit and both NH and JL cancelled their 787-3 orders for additional 787-8s.

A smaller frame is going to have a smaller span. That's going to hurt it's economics against larger widebodies as well as the single-class A321-200neo and 737-9.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5757 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):

Lets get back to this about abusing WBs when oil is $200, I think we will see greater demand for optimization for airlines. Boeing thinks the 788 can replace everything from 739 up to 763/A332. It´s not logical to have 100t+ flying the same routes as 757/A300/767/A332s do currently, not in my world. People vote for frequency over capacity.

Either a smaller WB or a more capable NB will be needed for the future.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5758 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 54):
This makes a lot of sense for Airbus I think because of the future gap in offering from the 321 to the 350-800 when the 330 segment will gradually be taken over by the 787

I'm thinking about Boeing's elliptical fuselage 7-abreast twin-aisle design. It's like a 767-light and it would be made of CFRP. The additional cabin width allows for faster boarding/turnaround than a single-aisle design and the upper (and lower) passenger counts are a bit larger than a 6-abreast single-aisle aircraft.

But remember that minimizing fleet types isn't just good for airlines, it's also good for manufacturers.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5739 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 57):
Lets get back to this about abusing WBs when oil is $200...

Considering how the price of oil impacts the price of just about everything, when oil is $200 a barrel we're going to see a contraction in air traffic as people curtail their leisure travel because they will be spending more on automobile fuel, electricity, heating fuel, food and other necessities.

So we'll see those A350-800s and 787-8s replaced with A321-200neos and 737-9s to account for the lower traffic loads.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5736 times:

When US finally gives in and builds the LFTR fuel wont be a problem  

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13233 posts, RR: 36
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5729 times:

Quote:
Lets get back to this about abusing WBs when oil is $200

Oil prices will never reach $200. I think the oil price will crash in the near future, and both Airbus and Boeing will have a big problem with their high production rates.

But that's another discussion.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5696 times:

The original A350 with Al-li fuselage, thinner wall have almost the perfect cross section for medium haul...
So mate this fuselage with state of the art wing (CFRP off course) tailored for medium/ long haul you got a perfect stopgap with A300, A330-200 and A330-300 fuselage length

And it's a rather low risk evolution


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

Almost Soviet like the market will have 2 models in the end if people here will decide. Maybe the big airlines have too much power.

Airbus 2030 1 NB and one WB, same for B.

Less is better!..


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13233 posts, RR: 36
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5663 times:

Quote:
And it's a rather low risk evolution

Developing a CFRP wing is not really 'low risk'. Even Boeing is not sure yet if they want a CFRP wing for the 777X because of the high(er) development costs.

[Edited 2013-01-27 11:47:09]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Thanks to Astutemans checking the figures we now have a better table. Normally this is due to me forgetting that I have changed things and don't change back, this was not the cause this time.

As we shorten the trip length the TOW and average leg weight is lowered, this allows a higher initial and average FL. After having checked this several times and found that it normally produces less then a % difference I did not go over all frames this time and looked if this was the case. With the 330 we have a special case however, it normally starts at FL 310 and have 350 as average FL (where I do the Breguet calculation for the cruise part). FL350 is just below where the temp stops declining (36000ft) at FL360-390 the engines therefore have their min TSFC, then it increases again for FL over 390 due to Reynolds effects.

When I adjusted the 330 and the 789 they improved, the 788 could also step up to 370 startn and 410 average FL but this lowered the NAMS (how many nm per kg of fuel), here the new table where I also put in the loss in fuel used vs the 788 (click on the table to see better) :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/333neo332neovs3583597887897810FL370_zps8a2b1176.jpg

Edit: oops  Wow! , one of those "change to check something and forget to change back" is in the table, the 358 is suddenly a fully optimized version in this table at 127t OEW. As this gives one more datapoint I don't correct it as you have the 130t figures in the previous table   , the 789 is indeed calculated with 350 (for climb fuel) and 390 (for cruise fuel) I just forget to change it in the table entry.

For those who wonder why I can't catch these faults, the sheet as 334 rows and columns to BD (whatever that makes  Big grin )

[Edited 2013-01-27 13:11:05]


Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5511 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 65):
we now have a better table

Many thanks for the excellent work my friend. I, like the others, am indebted to you for your efforts   

And I think your table shows why the A330NEO isn't on Airbus's to do list.
Even after the last correction, the A350-800 has a lower trip fuel burn, despite being larger, more capable, and having greater range capability.

As I said upthread, if Airbus ever get round to optimising the A358's structure (failure to do which I think cost them some 5t in OEW), it will be a tidy airframe indeed.

All this does beg the question of what tony fernandes sees in an A330NEO of course.
Maybe he can see a benefit in its acquisition cost, and maybe hes looking at running them 9-abreast, in which case they could well be quite competitive with the a358 at the right price.
If that is the case though, i suspect his buying conditions represent a minority.

Rgds

[Edited 2013-01-27 13:14:47]

User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5405 times:

Thank you ferpe

It's a tough reality for the A332, even NEO ...
It's also a tough reality check for 787-9 and 787-10...


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5331 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 67):
It's also a tough reality check for 787-9 and 787-10...

I think they are doing just fine, they are 6 and 11m longer then the 788 with a start weight of +30t for the 7810, it should consume more trip fuel. The key is the fuel used per seat or m2 flown for those 11 hours, there they are competitive with frames which comes after them (789 vs 358) or which has a more advanced engines (7810 vs 359 and T1000-TEN vs TXWB).



Non French in France
User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8667 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5231 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
Everyone keeps on bringing up the idea of a new medium-haul optimized widebody and yet nobody seems to be doing it. Even the 787-3 never made it off the drawing board.

Could it be that airlines are willing to pay a weight penalty to have more flexibility in their aircraft?

This discussion is just the old "757 replacement thread" with different semantics  
Personally I don't think narrowbody vs. widebody has any relevance. The key is an optimized medium-haul frame that seats 250. Will they build it or won't they, that's an intriguing question. My understanding is that a "stubby" widebody is not as aerodynamic as a longer narrowbody so if it happens it will likey the much a NB frame.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
And yet the A330-200 has crushed the 767-400ER in sales. Why?

Neither have sold in significant numbers in quite a few years  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 59):
Considering how the price of oil impacts the price of just about everything, when oil is $200 a barrel we're going to see a contraction in air traffic as people curtail their leisure travel because they will be spending more on automobile fuel, electricity, heating fuel, food and other necessities.

I don't buy that. Economists said the same thing about the price of oil hitting $50 and then $100, and people kept flying. Just a decade ago oil was at $20/b and more people are flying today than ever before. But I also don't believe it will reach $200 a barrel so this is amute point  


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5190 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 68):

If you consider that for some legacies the 787 will never be a 9 abreast in the economy section... and that the A350 will always be a 9 abreast,
Personnally i'm waiting for that :
http://www.thompsonaero.com/index.php/lopas/#tab3
A customer for a 10 abreast Thompson solution... quite comfortable I think.


I'm not saying that the 787 are bad, but that the less rangewise capable 787-10 is not an A350-900 killer, except if its price is significantly lower
And the A350-800 is pricey, but not bad in terms of efficiency


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 53):
BUT... it was superior to the 788 on short-to-medium haul flights. Yet the airlines must have decided that the decrease in operating costs did not balance out the loss of flexibility.

Part of the problem was that the efficiency cross-over point between the 783 and 788 seemed to be about 250 miles. That's too short to even make sense for the Japanese domestic market.


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 71):

I think that the real problem for the 787-3 / 787-8 was the weight creep during the design phase. What was possible at the beginning at a given OEW with cropped wings was not possible anymore with current OEW


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 677 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4523 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 66):
maybe hes looking at running them 9-abreast, in which case they could well be quite competitive with the a358 at the right price.

Is he not planning to fit 10 abreast in his A359s? If so, he would do no doubt do the same if he had A358s.


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4376 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 73):

In fact
9 abreast on the A330 is 16.7 seat cushion and 16.4 aisle

What is 10 abreast in A350 ? We've not a lot of details... from what I gather it's 16.2 seat cushion... So that even narrower

Is it bearable ?
For the A350 it might be a wiser move to decrease 9 abreast seat pitch while maintaining a good width ?

Can a 9 abreast A330-200 / 300 NEO compete vwith a 9 abreast A350-800 ?


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4991 posts, RR: 41
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4292 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 66):
Many thanks for the excellent work my friend. I, like the others, am indebted to you for your efforts   

I can only second that.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 66):
And I think your table shows why the A330NEO isn't on Airbus's to do list.
Even after the last correction, the A350-800 has a lower trip fuel burn, despite being larger, more capable, and having greater range capability.

Which gives us a more factual base that the A350-800 is not the dog many here have claimed it to be. With the optimisation you are suggesting it could turn into a great performer. And would surprise many members here I guess?  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 66):
All this does beg the question of what tony fernandes sees in an A330NEO of course.

That does not become clear in the interviews where he makes his statements. And the numbers ferpe came up with are quite telling.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 69):
This discussion is just the old "757 replacement thread" with different semantics  

You could be right with your comments. But the issue remains an interesting, just as that lovely B757 is alsways good for some interesting discussions every year here on A-net.  .

[Edited 2013-01-28 05:08:28]

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...
Not A Good Week For Aviation. Small Plane Crash posted Sat Oct 16 2004 02:33:26 by MNeo
Not A Good Day At BCN posted Wed Jan 2 2013 07:15:15 by 802flyguy
Southwest CEO Wants 737 Re-engined posted Thu Oct 28 2010 17:35:59 by cosmofly
The DC-9 And 737- Not Good Cargo Airplanes? posted Mon Aug 30 2010 10:41:34 by c5load
Southwest: A320 / 737 Reengining Not Good Enough posted Fri Jun 25 2010 15:21:47 by keesje
Easyjet: Re-engining A320/737 Not Good Enough. posted Mon Mar 22 2010 04:49:26 by keesje
Report: NW/DL Bomber Could Not Crash Plane posted Thu Mar 4 2010 08:38:20 by AirBuffalo
Not A Good Weekend For UK Flying. posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:58:44 by LHR380
Not A Good Day For Norwegian Air Shuttle posted Fri Oct 17 2008 07:25:11 by Scooter01
5th March Not A Good Day In Airline History posted Wed Mar 5 2008 11:52:58 by GDB