Panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 377 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5128 times:
I was doing a comparison between the Airbus A300-600 and the A330-200 and I have noticed that although they have the same fuselage diameter at 5.64 m with the cabin length of the A332 cabin is only 10% longer (4.3m), the operating weight empty of the A332 is 30% more. (90.9 tons for the A300-600 vs 119.6 tons for the A332)
I know the wings on the A332 are longer and bigger, but does this justify the extra 28.7 tons?
Is it the engines?
The engine diameter on the A300-600 is 94 inches, while the engine diameter on the A332 is 97 inches.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6255 posts, RR: 39 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5090 times:
I know that the A332 has much longer range than the A306; this is a big factor. This means that there must be space for the tanks, structure to support the weight of full tanks, as well as the longer wing to generate the lift to carry the extra fuel. Comparing the empty weight is fairly meaningless without also comparing the MTOW. The MTOW of the A336 is 165,900 kg, while the A332's is up to 233,000kg. The ratio of MTOW to empty weight for the A306 is about 1.8, while for the A332 it is 1.4. Again, this in itself does not mean much; what airlines are interested in is how much they can carry for how far at what price. And the A332 has proved itself to be a much more efficient moneymaker for the airlines than the A306.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Prolly a fair bit of the extra is in the landing gear too. Need stronger gear for the higher MTOW as well taller struts for the 10% longer fuselage. And those struts are solid alloy steel...
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5085 times:
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5060 times:
Quoting Panais (Thread starter): I know the wings on the A332 are longer and bigger, but does this justify the extra 28.7 tons?
There is one relevant point to your question: with all fuel tanks (including center) filled to maximum, the A332's weight is practically at MTOW. This facility is obviously never used except for (exceptionally long) ferry flights because you then have nil payload.
What this means is that part of the structural strengthening needed to support all that fuel load is, in a manner of speaking, deadweight. It is strengthening that is only relevant to ferry flights and not payload-carrying ones.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2060 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5030 times:
Good observation. The 30% come from the different peformance profiles. The A330 is a high performer (= long range plane) compared to the A300.
B.t.w. these 30% are a good indication how much the 783 would have to be lighter than the 788 to be taken serious on the short-range market. On the example A300 vs A330 you can spot anything that would make the 783 succesful too. Do you know that a tailor made short-range 783 design would deliver the best CASM of any plane flying on this planet today? And this by a large margin.
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5011 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 7): Good observation. The 30% come from the different peformance profiles. The A330 is a high performer (= long range plane) compared to the A300
Which perhaps raises the question of why add all the extra strengthening needed when operationally you will never come close to filling in all your fuel tanks on revenue flights. Only reason I can see is anticipation of (much) higher thrust versions of your engines in the future.
Panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5003 times:
Thank you all for the input, very helpful.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 7): these 30% are a good indication how much the 783 would have to be lighter than the 788 to be taken serious on the short-range market
If you were advising Airbus, barring creating a new plane, would you advise them to extent the A300 to the A332 length, or have Airbus re-design the entire middle section of the A332?
Which option will be closer to the 787-3 in performance and capacity, with more range?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, RR: 73 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4826 times:
Quoting Panais (Thread starter): same fuselage diameter at 5.64 m with the cabin length of the A332 cabin is only 10% longer (4.3m)
The A330-200 is over 5m longer than the A300, it is the length of this cylinder would contain a fair bit of weight, looking at the difference in length between the A330-300 and A330-200 being similar to the difference in length between the A330-200 and the A300-B4, you can assume that piece of cylinder is over 3,000 kg. Compare the cabin/cargo volume to appreciate the differences.
Quoting Panais (Thread starter): I know the wings on the A332 are longer and bigger, but does this justify the extra 28.7 tons?
It would have a lot to do with it. the difference in span is significant, as well as the wing thickness. Compare the fuel volume between the two to appreciate the size difference.
Sponsor Message: 
From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 377 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6255 posts, 
From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3687 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2060 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
