User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:25 am

If the Airbus A358 is an 'all new' airplane, why does it have the same length and width as the A332?

If passenger comfort is an issue why not widen the fuselage? If cargo is an issue why not make it longer so that it takes more containers?

Also I notice that the fuel payload is the same between the A358 and the A332, does this mean that the actual fuselage and wing box are actually not new? That they are basically putting new engines and a reskinned wing and calling it a all new design? Is it an all new design?

If this has been discussed before my apologies.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:34 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
Is it an all new design?

That would probably vary depending on what question Leahy's being asked.

Q.Does the A350 have A330 commonality?

A.Yes it's a derivative of the A330 and has vast commonality.

Q.Will it be more efficient than the 787?

A.Yes, it's an advanced all new design.
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:07 am

Dimensions mean ZILCH! You have to look at the new materials, systems, engines, and technologies incorporated into the cabin interior. That's why it's all new. If "all new" was characterised by dimension then I can think of a couple of aircraft pairs off the top of my head already  Wink
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:16 am

You have provided 2 measurements that are irrelevant to my discussion, Wing Span and Cabin Length.

The B764 has a larger wingspan and longer cabin length than a 763, but it is not a new aircraft, see my point?
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:23 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
The B764 has a larger wingspan and longer cabin length than a 763, but it is not a new aircraft, see my point?

No I don't.

If new cabin length, new wingspan, new wing area, new engines, new materials, new systems, new weight, lower fuel burn, longer range etc is still all the same plane for you then tell me what make an aircraft really new?
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:27 am

Some other numbers that don't seem to be adding up, so I am looking for clairfication.

The A358 will carry the same fuel load as the A332, 36,750 gallons.

The A358 max takeoff weight is shown as 540,000 pounds while the A332 is shown at 507,000 pounds.

They both carry the same amount of passengers, and the A332 carries more cargo (I think).

But the A358 has a range listed as 8,880 NM, while the A332 has a range of 6,750 NM.

So how can a plane that weighs 6% more achieve 25% more range? Are the new engines (more powerful on the A358 vs. A332) that much more efficient? 25% from the engines and a redsigned wing?

It seems like such a leap.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:30 am

But it weighs more, not less! It is supposed to be all new, but the numbers I am looking at show:

Operating Weight (empty)

A332 - 263,670
A358 - 273,591

So they have proposed a 'new' plane, using 'advanced techniques and materials' that weighs more and carrys the same, yet is a much better performer.

I am just trying to understand the numbers, that's all.
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:30 am

Clickhappy-- If this has been discussed before my apologies.

Well I don't know about your needing to apologise right here, but then hey where have you been because yeah it sorta has  Smile


It does seem to me though like the A350 is still very much just a smoke-and-mirrors PR offering from Airbus so far, not very successfully trying to buy a bit of time while backstage some of their guys are working long hours trying to figure out what the heck they're actually going to offer, and then build.
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:32 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
So how can a plane that weighs 6% more achieve 25% more range? Are the new engines (more powerful on the A358 vs. A332) that much more efficient? 25% from the engines and a redsigned wing?

Exactly. It must have many more "new" things. So you have just proven that it's not all the same aircraft  Wink
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:33 am

I don't believe that it is smoke or mirrors. Airbus builds a fine product and is run by professionals.

I am just trying to make the numbers work, and in my mind they don't, so I am hopeing that someone can explain it.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:35 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
So they have proposed a 'new' plane, using 'advanced techniques and materials' that weighs more and carrys the same, yet is a much better performer.

That'll probably be down to the engines.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:39 am

Well, what are these 'new' things, as you put them.

We have aerodynamics, engines, weight, and what else?
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:51 am

Clickhappy-- I don't believe that it is smoke or mirrors.

Okay, but for me anyway so far it pretty much has been. Now of course, they are indeed going to actually come out with something at some point in the not-too-distant future. And it'll have to be rather different indeed otherwise wow are they ever going to be in trouble  Smile But it's just that so far the whole 'warmed-over A330' tag for their PR shucking and jiving has I think been largely apt, and a bit laughable too.

Airbus builds a fine product and is run by professionals.

They've had their slip-ups though, especially lately. And at times run jointly by political swirlings too (let's face it, it's such a hugely-big-ticket industry that it's just about impossible to avoid, for all major players)


I am just trying to make the numbers work, and in my mind they don't, so I am hopeing that someone can explain it.

I sure can't explain it at this point either but yeah so far it doesn't look like much of an "all new" plane at all, no matter what Mr. Leahy might effuse to the contrary.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:54 am

What about comparing the A358 to the 788? They will be using (basically) the same engines, correct? So any gain in efficency will be shared by both types?


Max takeoff weight:
A358 - 540,000 pounds
788 - 480,000 pounds

Max payload:
A358 - 101,000 pounds
788 - 108,000 pounds

Fuel payload:
A358 - 36,750 pounds
788 - 32,139 pounds

Max range (with max pax):
A358 - 8,800 NM
788 - 8,500 NM

The A358 will use engines that produce 11% more power than those on the 788 (75,000 pounds/thrust vs. 67,000 pounds/thurst)

So how is it that a plane that weighs more, by 12%, and uses engines that will burn more fuel, able to fly 4% farther?
 
ETStar
Posts: 1850
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:25 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:54 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
If the Airbus A358 is an 'all new' airplane, why does it have the same length and width as the A332?

If passenger comfort is an issue why not widen the fuselage? If cargo is an issue why not make it longer so that it takes more containers?

Airbus has stated that the 350 is 90-something percent different than the 330. Also, the range and economics that come with the new plane make it a lot more different than the predecessor. It's kind of like asking why Boeing is going with the 787 when it could have stretched/reworked the 777 or even the 767.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14478
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:17 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
A332 carries more cargo (I think).

I wonder if this is due to moving the crew rest area downstairs?

That would mean less room for cargo on A350.

BTW I'm really impressed by the A350 orders. I don't think it's smoke and mirrors, except perhaps for the Indian beer company buying 15 widebodies. I think almost all the airlines are really good at studying the airplanes they buy, and they are very good at getting guarantees written into contracts. Just like Clickhappy, some of the numbers aren't making sense to me, and it's natural to ask why.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14478
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:29 am

Quoting ETStar (Reply 14):
Airbus has stated that the 350 is 90-something percent different than the 330.

They've said that the part numbers of 90% of the parts are different. If one is cynical, one can wonder if they changed the part number of the rivets to get maybe 60-80% of the differences.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
N60659
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:33 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 13):
So how is it that a plane that weighs more, by 12%, and uses engines that will burn more fuel, able to fly 4% farther?

Good question. I had kind of hinted at the same issue on another thread:
A350 Specs Now On Airbus's Site. (by RJ111 Jun 13 2005 in Civil Aviation)#67

If you haven't read it yet, there is some good analysis on that thread as well.

As to your question, maybe Boeing is being conservative with it's range estimates.

-N60659
Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:39 am

Here is another way to look at the (odd) numbers, this time comparing the 764ER to the 788 and the A358 to the A332.

Fuel Payload:
764ER - 24,000 pounds
788 - 32,000 pounds

A332 - 36,750 pounds
A358 - 36,750 pounds

Max Range:
764ER - 5,650 NM
788 - 8,500 NM

A332 - 6,750 NM
A358 - 8,800 NM


So, the 788 carries 25% more fuel than a 764ER, and goes 33% farther. More fuel = more range, right?

The A358 carries the same amount of fuel as a A332, yet goes 24% (I called it 25% earlier) farther.

How is that possible? For Boeing, more = more, for Airbus, the same = more?
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:52 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
The A358 carries the same amount of fuel as a A332, yet goes 24% (I called it 25% earlier) farther.

How is that possible? For Boeing, more = more, for Airbus, the same = more?

Not really a sensible argument because the range of an aircraft is a far more complex function than just fuel volume.

For a start the A350-800's MTOW will be 12T higher than that of the A330-200 (245T vs 233T) Secondly, through the use of advanced composites, the A350-800 will weigh 8T less than the dimensionally similar A330-200.

Also, like the 787 the A350 features the next generation of engines which are expected to increase fuel efficiency giving more range for a given fuel volume.

So for a given payload the A350 will be able to fly further than the A330, because the new aircraft has a 20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying ability as well as more efficient engines.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
N60659
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:01 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
A332 - 36,750 pounds
A358 - 36,750 pounds

I think you mean US gallons. It would be 248,932 lb.

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 19):
So for a given payload the A350 will be able to fly further than the A330, because the new aircraft has a 20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying ability as well as more efficient engines.

But the max usable fuel for both the A332 and the A358 is the same at 36,750 US Gallons regardless of the increased MTOW. This puts the onus almost completely on the efficiency of the engines. I certainly see Clickhappy's point.

-N60659
Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:03 am

how can you say "20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying" when the specs being passed around show the A358 to carry the same amount of fuel (measure in gallons) as the A332.

Does fuel in the A358 weigh less? A different kind of fuel? I understand the concept of being able to carry more weight, but if the tank size is the same how can weight matter?

Thank you for your answers.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:03 am

Including the 767-400ER with the 788, A332, and A358 is best comparison yet. As I've posted before, the A332 -> A358 improvement should be less than the 764 -> 788 improvement for a couple of reasons:

- The A332 is more than 10 years newer than the 767 design, thus the scope for aerodynamic and structural improvements should be smaller.

- The A358 is still based to some extent on the A330 (same fuselage structure, suspiciously similar fuel tankage) and is using engines optimized for another airframe. The 787 is a completely clean-sheet design with clean-sheet engines.

This is why, in Boeing's words, Airbus would have to rewrite the laws of physics to achieve their payload/range numbers. The A332/A358 comparison does not make sense, especially given the 764/788 comparison. Flying a heavier aircraft with the same payload and the same fuel volume at a faster cruise speed 24% farther indicates some radical breakthrough in aerodynamic or propulsive efficiency that is currently not in evidence.

The only thing I can think of is that the original A330/A340 wing was such a compromise design that moving to a unique A350 wing produces massive benefits. This seems highly unlikely given the A330's solid performance and the relatively small changes to the A340 wing for the A340-500/600.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:04 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
So, the 788 carries 25% more fuel than a 764ER, and goes 33% farther. More fuel = more range, right?

So according to your logic 787 effectively gains only 8% of range on its efficiency? Weird because Boeing claims that:
"The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner is a super-efficient airplane with new passenger-pleasing features. It will bring the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market, using 20 percent less fuel than any other airplane of its size. "

Seriously - as Crosswind says these are much more complicated matters. If Airbus sells an aircraft with certain promises they'll better keep their word. Time will tell.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:10 am

Danny I think your math is wrong (but correct me if I am wrong)

You are subtracting 33% - 25% to get 8% (33 - 25 = 8)

But what you mean to be doing is diving 25% by 33% to get +25%.

Therefore, based on fuel in gallons carried and range, the 788 is 25% more efficent than a 764ER.
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:29 am

According to your data 764ER flies 5650nm on 24000lb of fuel. So it can make 0,24 mile per 1lb. Give it 32000lb as 788 has and it should make 7680nm. Since 788 is supposed to be 20% more efficient it should make 7680nm +20%=9216nm but Boeing says only 8500nm.

Not that I agree with above calculation, but that is yet another proof that these are much more complicated matters which are handled by the whole teams of world's best engineers. I am sure these guys are much smarter than we are so let's trust in their numbers.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:41 am

Quoting N60659 (Reply 20):
But the max usable fuel for both the A332 and the A358 is the same at 36,750 US Gallons regardless of the increased MTOW. This puts the onus almost completely on the efficiency of the engines. I certainly see Clickhappy's point.

Yes, the fuel capacity is the same, but you have failed to understand that in common with all other aircraft at max ZFW (payload) the A330-200 cannot also carry max fuel. As the ZFW (payload) increases the amount of fuel you can carry, and therefore range reduces.

By reducing the basic weight of the aircraft, and increasing MTOW, you have increased the range of ZFWs through which full fuel can be carried while remaining within the aircraft's structural MTOW. At the top end where higher ZFWs restrict the amount of fuel that can be carried, the impact is much less because (a) The basic weight of the aircraft is less and (b) The aircraft's MTOW is higher. Basically the revised aircraft weights reduce the compromises between payload and fuel that currently have to be made.

And, yes, the engines will also make a significant contribution - Airbus expects them to be 15% more efficient than the current A330 powerplants.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
Propulsion
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:30 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:43 am

I am baffled at how the A350 numbers add up too. Where are these savings going to come from? Are the new engines sufficient to produce all this benefit?

I have very little idea of what to expect the A350 to actually become. Have the airlines who have ordered done so in the blind? And if not, were all their requested performance promises so similar that they can all be adhered to?

It would be extremely interesting to see exactly how these will come about.
A bus is a vehicle that runs twice as fast when you are after it as when you are in it.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:52 am

Well, if we use your line of thinking:

A358 8,800 NM on 36,750 gallons of fuel = 0.2394 mile per gallon

788 8,500 NM on 32,139 gallons of fuel = 0.2644 mile per gallon

So, on that number alone the 788 is 10% more efficient than the A358?

I have left out things like pax and payload, the same as your above comparing furl burn on the 764ER vs 788.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:00 am

The basic weight of the aircraft is less

The figures being passed around show:

Operating weight - empty:

A332 - 263,670 pounds
A358 - 273,591 pounds

Based on these numbers the A358 weighs more, not less.

What is "Operating weight - empty?" I assume it is the airplane, no cargo and no fuel?

When you say the basic weight of the aircraft is less, what numbers are you using?
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:26 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
Here is another way to look at the (odd) numbers, this time comparing the 764ER to the 788 and the A358 to the A332.

Fuel Payload:
764ER - 24,000 pounds
788 - 32,000 pounds

A332 - 36,750 pounds
A358 - 36,750 pounds



Quoting Danny (Reply 25):
According to your data 764ER flies 5650nm on 24000lb of fuel.

At what weight will a 767-400ER fly for 5,650 miles on 24,000lbs of fuel? I am here to tell you that its not going very far on such a light fuel load with many pax or cargo. I think you mean 24,000 gallons, maybe which equates to around 160,000lbs of fuel.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:29 am

yes, my mistake = it should be 24,000 gallons.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:46 am

As Clickhappy showed, the A358's OEW is about 10,000 lbs. higher than the A332's. Its MTOW is 26,400 lbs. higher. At best, this only allows about 16,000 lbs. of additional payload for a given fuel volume, or vice versa, to be carried. The number will be smaller because, to maintain a constant payload/range mix, a given increase in OEW requires a greater than corresponding increase in MTOW due to the additional fuel burn required to lift the heavier aircraft.

The A330-200 is unusual in that its maximum fuel capacity (in lbs.) is just about equal to the MTOW less OEW; in other words, the tanks can only be full with zero payload. Thus, the payload-range curve does not have a lower break representing the max-fuel constraint. Airbus quotes the A332's 6,750nm range with about 55,000 pounds of payload (eyeballing the chart), leaving about MTOW-OEW-Payload = 195,000 pounds or 29,000 gallons for the standard 6,750nm route.

A payload-range chart for the A350-800 would solve this problem very quickly; simply calculate the fuel tankage needed to fly the same payload to the edge of the payload/range chart. Failing that, the best we can do is analyze the stats Airbus has shown us. The A332's zero-payload range is about 9,000nm, close to the 8,800nm range quoted for the A358.

I'll assume a generous 5,000-pound payload for the A332 over 8,800nm, leaving 245,000 pounds of fuel on board at MTOW. I'll also assume that the A358's range is quoted at MTOW (which it is) for the same 55,000-pound payload (which we're not sure of). For the A350-800's standard 8,800nm trip, this payload and the stated OEW would leave 211,500 pounds or 31,567 gallons of fuel on board at MTOW.

Thus, the A358 can apparently carry 50,000 lbs. more payload and 33,500 lbs. less fuel over 8,800nm run, when the OEW and MTOW allow a maximum of 16,000 pounds more leeway to trade fuel against payload. Since the change in OEW is already factored in, the entire increase in payload-range must come out of fuel burn reduction, either from gains in engine efficiency or aerodynamics. In short, the A358 has about 88,500 lbs. more payload-range capability than the A332 on a fuel volume base of 211,500 lbs.

This seems optimistic at the least, and if the payload used in Airbus' 8,800nm range quote is higher, which it may well be, the divergence will increase.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2005-06-16 23:54:07]
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:52 am

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 19):
For a start the A350-800's MTOW will be 12T higher than that of the A330-200 (245T vs 233T) Secondly, through the use of advanced composites, the A350-800 will weigh 8T less than the dimensionally similar A330-200.

That's what Airbus says, but if you take a look at their specs sheet, the 332 OEW is 119.6t and the 358 OEW is 124.1t. So, the 358 is 4.5t heavier in OEW than the 332. If the 8t claim is true, it means the new engines will be some 10t heavier than the Trent 700, CF6, or PW4000. I kind of doubt that's the case. So, I believe Airbus exaggerated the weight saving.

Quote:

Also, like the 787 the A350 features the next generation of engines which are expected to increase fuel efficiency giving more range for a given fuel volume.

So for a given payload the A350 will be able to fly further than the A330, because the new aircraft has a 20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying ability as well as more efficient engines

No, because of the heavier OEW, it only has 7.5t more. Although the new engine is said to be about 15% more efficient, but with the same aerodynamic wing as the 330, 4.5t heavier OEW, bigger engines with more drag, I just don't think the 12t increase in MTOW or 7.5t increase in payload/fuel carrying ability can improve the range of the 332 by a whopping 2,050nm, or 30%! Even if they redesign a more efficient wing, I don't think they can get anywhere close to their claims.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:47 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
If passenger comfort is an issue why not widen the fuselage?

Because the A332 is comfortable enough.

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
If cargo is an issue why not make it longer so that it takes more containers?

Well it takes more pallets and and LD3's than the 772ER so its big enough.

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
fuel payload

Is there such a thing as fuel payload - I am guessing you mean fuel load? Well basically, it doesn't need an increase in fuel because it is more efficient, plus it has a thinner wing so its capacity goes down but its longer so thats why its similar/same as the A332.

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
That they are basically putting new engines and a reskinned wing and calling it a all new design? Is it an all new design?

Hmm, 747 Advanced comes to mind.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
Some other numbers that don't seem to be adding up, so I am looking for clairfication.

Are they not adding up or do you not want them to? More passengers and longer distance with better operating figures that any A330 certainly add up in my book.
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:00 pm

Quote:

Because the A332 is comfortable enough.

That's not good enough. Everything is relative. The competition provides either more comfort at 8 abreast, or more revenue at 9 abreast.

Quote:

Well it takes more pallets and and LD3's than the 772ER so its big enough.

That's not good enough. The 788 can carry more LD3s than the 332/388, and the 789 can carry more LD3s than the 333/359.

Quote:

Hmm, 747 Advanced comes to mind.

Boeing hasn't called the 747A a whole new plane, but Airbus is calling the 350 a whole new plane.

Quote:

Are they not adding up or do you not want them to? More passengers and longer distance with better operating figures that any A330 certainly add up in my book.

They certainly can improve signficantly with a more efficient engine and more usage of advanced materials. As I said in Reply 33, the numbers don't add up. The 12t increase in MTOW and 15% improvement in engine fuel burn don't get you 30% more range.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:25 pm

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 35):
That's not good enough. Everything is relative. The competition provides either more comfort at 8 abreast, or more revenue at 9 abreast.

Well the "comfort level" on the A332 is good enough (i.e. noise levels and internal manufacturer design). Airbus don't think width is an issue and its their plane.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 35):
That's not good enough. The 788 can carry more LD3s than the 332/388, and the 789 can carry more LD3s than the 333/359.

Ok, so why don't you compare the 788 to the A358 and would you care to explain how exactly 34 LD3's a piece means the 789 can carry more of them than the A359?

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 35):
Boeing hasn't called the 747A a whole new plane, but Airbus is calling the 350 a whole new plane.

I recall airbus saying it would be a new plane with 90% different parts... If you provide some evidence other than aesthetics and common figures to suggest that its nothing more than a variant then I will happily listen but right now I see the A350 - A330 link as no different to the 787 -767 link.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 35):
They certainly can improve signficantly with a more efficient engine and more usage of advanced materials. As I said in Reply 33, the numbers don't add up. The 12t increase in MTOW and 15% improvement in engine fuel burn don't get you 30% more range.

More advanced materials? - Airbus have openly stated that they believe the composite fuselage doesn't work for them opting for Lithium Alloy because they believe it will be cheaper do repair. Whether its right or not remains to be seen. As for the figures, they don't correspond with other figures listed for the jet. If you can prove that this plane can't go the distance, go and prove the Airbus aerodynamicists wrong.
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
airlinelover
Posts: 5287
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:03 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:38 pm

Q.Will it be more efficient than the 787?

A.Yes, it's an advanced all new design.


I believe this is false. All other reports I've read indicate otherwise. THat's also why the A350 is not doing too well...

Chris
Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
 
deltaguy767
Posts: 644
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:32 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:51 pm

From what I've been looking at throughtout this post, I have seen no clear evidence that this A-350 is A) an entirely new model and B)that this is even possible range with a higher weight that the A-330, and carries the same amount of fuel as the A-330. As someone said earlier I believe that this is a smoke and mirrors ploy on Airbus's part to try and grab customers away from the B-787 which is a legitimate aircraft. So until I see some more convincing stats and pictures besides and A-333 then I believe that the part of this community like myself that has serious doubts on the legimitacy of the A-350. I know that airlines as well wouldn't be impressed if all they got was an A-330ADV rather than an newer aircraft like they were promised by Lahey. I want to make this clear that I am not an Airbus basher, but I have serious doubts that the A-350 is the product that the Airbus guys are advertising. So if someone can give me some stats that can confirm what Lahey is advertising that would be great.

Regards from BDL
DeltaGuy767
A Good Landing is one you walk away from!
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:53 pm

Quoting Airlinelover (Reply 37):
THat's also why the A350 is not doing too well...

Its not?
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:13 pm

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 39):
Quoting Airlinelover (Reply 37):
THat's also why the A350 is not doing too well...

Somebody did not make his homework  Wink If you missed it A350 has well over 100 orders and this is in only half a year after they started to sell it.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:10 pm

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 36):
Well the "comfort level" on the A332 is good enough (i.e. noise levels and internal manufacturer design). Airbus don't think width is an issue and its their plane.

I don't think Airbus agrees with you. If it's not an issue, why they bother to use thinner cabin wall to allow 18-inch seats and claim they can also fit 9-abreast seating. The truth of the matter is even with the 3-inch increase in the cabin width will not allow them to fit 17-inch seats and maintain at least 17-inch aisle.

Quote:

Ok, so why don't you compare the 788 to the A358 and would you care to explain how exactly 34 LD3's a piece means the 789 can carry more of them than the A359?

Then you don't have the right data. It's 36 on the 789.

Quote:

I recall airbus saying it would be a new plane with 90% different parts... If you provide some evidence other than aesthetics and common figures to suggest that its nothing more than a variant then I will happily listen but right now I see the A350 - A330 link as no different to the 787 -767 link.

I guess you didn't even bother to read Airbus's press release. Why don't you take a look at the header of the following press release:

http://events.airbus.com/A380/EVENTS...05/articleDetailnsi.aspx?ArtId=423

If you're still to lazy to click, let me just transcribe it for you:


INTRODUCING THE ALL-NEW A350 – LONG-RANGE REVENUE GENERATION


Quote:

More advanced materials? - Airbus have openly stated that they believe the composite fuselage doesn't work for them opting for Lithium Alloy because they believe it will be cheaper do repair. Whether its right or not remains to be seen.

Monty, would you please read what Airbus has said before you make this kind of statements. The aluminum lithium alloy is considered advanced materials. Once again, if you are too lazy to click the above link, here's the part on advanced materials in that press release:


As much as 60 per cent of the structural weight of the A350 is composed of advanced materials. Blending lower weight with proven technology, the lightweight new materials include the latest generation of Aluminium Lithium alloys and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP).


Quote:

As for the figures, they don't correspond with other figures listed for the jet.

Once again, I quoted everything from data posted on Airbus's own website. If you haven't checked yourself, don't make blank accusations.

Quote:

If you can prove that this plane can't go the distance, go and prove the Airbus aerodynamicists wrong.

I am not involved in aircraft purchase decision, so there is no reason for me to go tell Airbus aerodynamicists or marketing people that they are wrong. They won't care what I say. I am presenting simple numbers and basic physical understandings of the matter. If you can't prove me wrong, then don't bother making meaningless statements. Airbus has an ulterior motive to sell their planes against the competition. Thus, they have to somehow convince the customers that their planes are more capable. More often than not, marketing does involve some capability inflation, but I feel this time Airbus might have gone overboard.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:37 pm

Quoting DeltaGuy767 (Reply 38):
As someone said earlier I believe that this is a smoke and mirrors ploy on Airbus's part to try and grab customers away from the B-787 which is a legitimate aircraft

You actually believe that Airbus would ACTUALLY adopt that approach? - it would be commercial suicide! Anybody actually believe that any airlines would accept either Airbus or Boeing figures without an explanation?
These guys aren't college kids - they're some of the best engineers and industrialists in the world. (Both B and A)

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 26):
Yes, the fuel capacity is the same, but you have failed to understand that in common with all other aircraft at max ZFW (payload) the A330-200 cannot also carry max fuel

Quite correctly, Crosswind has pointed out that virtually no aircraft can carry Max payload, max pax, AND max fuel - it's not possible.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 32):
The A332's zero-payload range is about 9,000nm, close to the 8,800nm range quoted for the A358.

But this is with with no pax/payload.

With 15% more efficient engines, 2-3 % better aerodynamics, +12t more carrying capacity, the A350 should be able to, as Airbus claim, carry its 250 passengers 8 800 miles (without any other payload, though, I suspect..)
 
cymro
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 10:51 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:55 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
If the Airbus A358 is an 'all new' airplane, why does it have the same length and width as the A332?

If you were to look at all planes made by both A & B then you would probably find that alot of the models share parts. This is to keep design costs down.

Have you ever thought that maybe the A350 design team looked at the requirements and decided that this would be the best size for their design?
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:24 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 42):
But this is with with no pax/payload.

With 15% more efficient engines, 2-3 % better aerodynamics, +12t more carrying capacity, the A350 should be able to, as Airbus claim, carry its 250 passengers 8 800 miles (without any other payload, though, I suspect..)

They A350 does not have 12t more capacity; it has, at most, 16,000 pounds more versus the A332. The problem is not that the A358 can carry some payload over 8,800nm, the problem is that it does this burning a ridiculously small amount of fuel. The second-to-last paragraph of the post you quoted is key:


Thus, the A358 can apparently carry 50,000 lbs. more payload and 33,500 lbs. less fuel over 8,800nm run, when the OEW and MTOW allow a maximum of 16,000 pounds more leeway to trade fuel against payload. Since the change in OEW is already factored in, the entire increase in payload-range must come out of fuel burn reduction, either from gains in engine efficiency or aerodynamics. In short, the A358 has about 88,500 lbs. more payload-range capability than the A332 on a fuel volume base of 211,500 lbs.

What I mean by the last sentence is that 88,500 lbs. of payload-range capability must be explained by fuel burn reduction when the amount of FOB is only 245,000 lbs. for the A332 versus 211,500 lbs. for the A358. This is a radical improvement in fuel burn that is much greater than what Boeing is predicting over the 767. It does not make sense that a semi-derivative of the newer A332 can eke out more gains than a clean-sheet model replacing a 25-year-old airframe.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:34 am

Have you ever thought that maybe the A350 design team looked at the requirements and decided that this would be the best size for their design?

You think the Airbus engineers sat down with a clean sheet of paper and designed a whole new airplane, it just happened to have the same width, length, and fuel capacity as the model it is replacing? Is that what you are saying?
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:42 am

The wole thing is just goofy. One minute Airbus says one thing about the A-350 like "90% new parts", but all they did was give them different parts numbers. All they really did to it was a new wing and engine. Then Leahy comes around and says it has lots of ocmmonality with A-330.

But just because they have the same fuselage width and length does not mean it is not a new airplane. They simply used the same size fuselage.
One Nation Under God
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:55 am

A quick summary of A330 to A350 changes from last week's Flight International article (transposing key points from a diagram)


  • CFRP rear fuselage
  • Rear pressure bulkhead moved aft
  • Bulk crew rest module relocated
  • New cabin interior and larger cabin windows
  • CFRP centre wingbox
  • CFRP outer wingbox
  • Improved aerodynamics
  • CFRP wing skin panels
  • CFRP wing spars
  • Flightdeck improvements
  • Flightdeck crew rest relocated to forward electronics bay
  • New landing gear
  • Droop leading-edge device in place of inboard slats
  • New generation engines (initially GEnX)
  • New titanium engine pylons
  • Passive and Active load alleviation
  • New fuselage structure
  • Aluminium-Lithium floor and skin panels
  • New horizontal stabiliser
  • New APU


Regards
CROSSWIND
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:10 am

CROSSWIND - thank you for this info. Do you know what 'CFRP' stands for?

Thanks.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?

Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:13 am

Clickhappy;
CFRP - Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic

Regards
CROSSWIND

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos