WunalaYann
Topic Author
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:16 pm

Hi all!

I have a few questions regarding the A330-300.

On A.net's profile it shows that there is a "long range" version of the A333. Does it exist for real?

I have been told many times not to trust A.net's figures or performance summaries, so here I go with the ignorant's questions again.

What is the range of the A333, both the regular and "long range" versions (provided the latter does exist)?

More specifically, if one fills up the plane's fuel tanks to the last drop, how far can it fly at MTOW, departing from an airport located roughly at sea level (LHR, CDG, AMS, SIN, JFK, etc.)? Can it do LHR-LAX or BCE-NRT or CDG-GRU or FRA-JNB with the required fuel reserves?

These are just examples off the top of my head.

Any help is greatly appreciated!!!

A warm "thanks" from Down Under,

Yann.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:33 pm

You got the A332 (no -33) VIP, range 15.400 km / 8300 nm with 50 seats, and A330-300 range is 10.500 km/ 5650 nm

Don´t know about A333E range thou...

All to read in www.airbus.com

Micke//   

[Edited 2007-06-06 13:37:09]
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:39 pm

Quoting WunalaYann (Thread starter):
What is the range of the A333, both the regular and "long range" versions (provided the latter does exist)?

I have heard talk about some carriers installing an Aux-tank on the A333, but I have not heard anything official about this from Airbus. I would have thought that their official website would benefit from showing a longer range figure, since there is allot of people who like to compare numbers. According to Airbus.com the range of the A333 is Range 10,500 km /5,650 nm. This range is accomplished with 97,170 Litres or 25,670 US gal. of fuel.

The A332 have 139,100 Litres 36,750 US gal. of max fuel which gives it a 12,500 km / 6,750 nm range.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
keesje
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:15 pm

Looking through earlier A330-300 range topics, it becomes clear most operators use the aircraft on routes upto 5200nm, some further.

The A330-300 has the lowest CASM among airliners, very usefull cargo capasity & praticle F/C/M cabin dimensions (1-2-1, 2-2-2, 2-4-2). The 5000nm covers most citypairs except the real long flights, making it a very popular with carriers like e.g. Lufthansa, Northwest and Cathay.


5000nm from FRA


5000nm from DTW


5000nm from HKG
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:24 pm

Quoting WunalaYann (Thread starter):
On A.net's profile it shows that there is a "long range" version of the A333. Does it exist for real?

A 5000nm range is pretty long, but it is true that the A330-300 cannot perform most trans-Pacific missions, which is where the A340-300 has the legs for that.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:44 pm

The original A330-300 had a MTOW of 219 tons approx. Since a while the A330-300(X) is available with 233 tons, using some structural changes introduced for the A330-200 and more powerful enigines. It looks like the CF6 option is only available since last year, first (X) were Trent or PW. Most -300 on order now I think are (X).

The A330 is a mid range aircraft. The above areas (thanks for the maps!) get smaller if you want to fly some cargo, but Trans Atlantic, Europe to India, North America to South America, Inner Asia, remain in range.
 
Nimish
Posts: 2890
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:46 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:05 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
Looking through earlier A330-300 range topics, it becomes clear most operators use the aircraft on routes upto 5200nm, some further.

The other thread (EI ordering 333s, 350s) talks about a 333 range of 4000nm, while the 332 has a range of 5000 nm.

However from the Airbus 333 specification site it seems like the range for the 333 is 5650nm.

So I'm not sure what to believe! If the Airbus figure is for real, then EI's 333s should be able to easily fly to all of North America, and most of Asia (other than the equatorial islands) from DUB.

Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
 
Steve332
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:27 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:25 pm

Quoting Nimish (Reply 6):
So I'm not sure what to believe! If the Airbus figure is for real, then EI's 333s should be able to easily fly to all of North America, and most of Asia (other than the equatorial islands) from DUB.

I noticed this myself, EI only fly 332's to LAX and soon SFO due to range constraints & as far as I know they dont even use then on the ORD route they only go to JFK, BOS and DXB I beleive.

But also these maps show the distance "as the crow flies" and most T/A traffic goes over the poles so maybe this has something to do with it??
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:31 pm

The quoted range for an airliner is normally at full passenger payload. This includes luggage and excludes any kind of cargo. Range at maximum payload is usually much less.

SailorOrion
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:18 pm

This is why I'm kind of surprised that Airbus didn't sell more A330-300's. It has easily enough range to fly between Europe and eastern North America, enough range to fly from Europe to cover most of Africa, and enough range to fly most east Asian regional routes.
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4459
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:35 pm

Quoting Steve332 (Reply 7):
But also these maps show the distance "as the crow flies" and most T/A traffic goes over the poles so maybe this has something to do with it??

The maps show the great circle distance which is the shortest mileage.
 
jdevora
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:41 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting Nimish (Reply 6):
So I'm not sure what to believe! If the Airbus figure is for real, then EI's 333s should be able to easily fly to all of North America, and most of Asia (other than the equatorial islands) from DUB.

My understanding is that the ranges on Airbus/Boeing web sites are for passengers only (no extra cargo except for the passenger's luggage) and without wind.

That is why you usually don't see routes as long as plane's nominal range.

Cheers
JD
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:12 am

Korean Airlines is using an A330-300 for its flight ICN-PRG-ICN (KE936/KE935) which is pretty long. I believe it's the longest scheduled nonstop flight operated by an A333.

ICN-PRG = 8258km / 5131mi / 4459nm.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tomas Galla

 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:17 am

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 9):

Guess you´re right, only A333s in Europe are SK, LH flying to Northeast US.

Oher Euro carriers mostly use B767-300ER to US.

Anyone knows more euro carriers using A333?

Micke//  Smile
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:36 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 13):
Anyone knows more euro carriers using A333?

LTU

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josh May


My Travel

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mats Sålder



Brussels Airlines


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wim Callaert - Brussels Aviation Photography


Iberworld


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Diego Ruiz de Vargas - Iberian Spotters



And I almost forget the very first A330 Operator, the lauch company, now defunct : Air Inter


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jordi Grife - Iberian Spotters


[Edited 2007-06-06 18:45:41]
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:45 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 13):
Anyone knows more euro carriers using A333?



Quoting FlySSC (Reply 14):

How about the green airline that makes the headlines today, namely Aer Lingus.
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:47 am

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 15):
How about the green airline that makes the headlines today, namely Aer Lingus.

EI was already named my Steve332 in the reply # 7
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:52 am

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 16):
EI was already named my Steve332 in the reply # 7

Alright then.  sorry 
 
MD80Nut
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:43 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:02 am

Speaking of the A333, I been reading a bit lately about an A330-300E. I'm assuming this is a variant bringing the A340-300E's improvements to the A333. Is this assumption correct? Will this A333E become the standard offering for this model?

Cheers, Ralph
Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:41 am

Quoting MD80Nut (Reply 18):
Speaking of the A333, I been reading a bit lately about an A330-300E. I'm assuming this is a variant bringing the A340-300E's improvements to the A333. Is this assumption correct?

Probably.

Quoting MD80Nut (Reply 18):
Will this A333E become the standard offering for this model?

Probably.


(No, my vocabulary is not limited to "probably"!)  Wink
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
keesje
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:51 am

I think Airbus should have come earlier with a A330-300 enhanced version with more range payload and bigger engines. Not only did I think so, I opened a thread on it 3,5 yrs ago. Now if only Airbus had listened..

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/1295838
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:54 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
I think Airbus should have come earlier with a A330-300 enhanced version with more range payload and bigger engines. Not only did I think so, I opened a thread on it 3,5 yrs ago. Now if only Airbus had listened..

They did listen to you Keesje, they called this enhanced version A350, and look how it turned out.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
WunalaYann
Topic Author
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:50 pm

Something blatantly obvious to everyone has just sprung to my attention. Ranges advertised by manufacturers are not at maximum payload.

Is there a website where one could find what the ranges are for all the main airliners at full payload? And is "full payload" a synomym of "MTOW"?

Thank you again for all your feedback - big help!

Yann.
 
karan69
Posts: 2699
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:57 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:15 pm

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 12):
Korean Airlines is using an A330-300 for its flight ICN-PRG-ICN (KE936/KE935) which is pretty long. I believe it's the longest scheduled nonstop flight operated by an A333.

ICN-PRG = 8258km / 5131mi / 4459nm.

That honour belongs to QF which operate BOM-SYD non-stop a distance of 5482 nm

Karan
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:06 am

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22):
Is there a website where one could find what the ranges are for all the main airliners at full payload?

No, but there is some info on the manufacturer's websites. But it's quite hidden. Google about "payload-range (chart)".

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22):
And is "full payload" a synomym of "MTOW"?

No. Payload is payload and MTOW is MTOW. They're unrelated.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18834
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:40 am

The following Boeing table doesn't include range but it shows weights and dimensions and certain other data for Boeing (and Douglas/McDonnell-Douglas) types, as they relate to airport operations.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...orts/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf
 
WunalaYann
Topic Author
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:56 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 24):
No. Payload is payload and MTOW is MTOW. They're unrelated.

Please allow me to rephrase. Do "taking off with full payload and fuel reserves" and "taking off at MTOW with full fuel reserves" mean the same thing? I understand MTOW does not specify how much payload and fuel contribute to MTOW but is it clearer?

I assume airlines are more interested in range with full payload rather than Tony Blair's BRU-SYD non-stop with 50 pax and no freight on board.

Anyway, thank you again for your information!

On that BOM-SYD segment, would the 333 be payload-restricted?
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:13 am

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 26):
On that BOM-SYD segment, would the 333 be payload-restricted?

unless there are some mother of all tailwinds on that route, given SYD-PVG and PEK is apparently payload limited and both those are under 5000nm I can't see a QF A333 making it BOM-SYD with full payload.
Were the QF A333s modified to X status when they had the engines upgraded?? If not with their original 212K MTOW they are going to be quite payload restricted on those routes. CX manages HKG-SYD ok with 230K A333X. CI A333s (non X) 230K have a 4000nm range with full passenger payload and reserves.
 
karan69
Posts: 2699
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:57 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 27):
nless there are some mother of all tailwinds on that route, given SYD-PVG and PEK is apparently payload limited and both those are under 5000nm I can't see a QF A333 making it BOM-SYD with full payload.

Actually the 333s do only the BOM-SYD route non-stop, the SYD- BOM route makes a technical stop at DRW, so there are a hell lot tail winds in the BOM-SYD direction

The 743s did it pretty comfortably but they were too much capacity for the route.

The new 332s with their strengthened floors would be perfect for the route.

Karan
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:21 pm

Quoting Steve332 (Reply 7):
But also these maps show the distance "as the crow flies" and most T/A traffic goes over the poles so maybe this has something to do with it??

All long haul traffic follows the great circle route (which is the most direct route) as much as possible, taking into account the effects of the winds aloft. If a plane goes over the poles, it's because it is the quickest way to go.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 26):
Do "taking off with full payload and fuel reserves" and "taking off at MTOW with full fuel reserves" mean the same thing?

They do not. The first one does not necessarily mean a takeoff at MTOW. For example, you can max a NRT-KIX flight out on payload and still takeoff well below MTOW because you don't need that much fuel for that short a distance. If you want to takeoff at MTOW, you have two options - completely fill the fuel tanks, and accept whatever payload you can take after that, or fill the cabin and cargo holds up to maximum zero fuel weight, and accept whatever fuel you can take after that. In both cases, MTOW will be the same, but one plane will carry less over a longer distance, and the other will carry more over a shorter distance. There are compromises between the two, but you have to decide whether range or payload is the higher priority.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
A340313X
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 9:03 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:54 pm

The A300-300X has the centre fuel tank from the A330-200 incresing the range to 5500nm from 4600nm. The 'E' varient is an advancement of the X with the cabin and flight deck enhancements of the A340-300E. Whether MTOWs for the 'E' will be any different for the 'X' is unknown as the 'E' has not yet flown.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:07 pm

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 11):
My understanding is that the ranges on Airbus/Boeing web sites are for passengers only (no extra cargo except for the passenger's luggage) and without wind.

They also use OEW's that are lighter than most airlines specify, particularly for airplanes used on long haul operatons. The 2% - 4% fuel mileage deterioration airliners experience after a couple of years in service is also not included.

These two factors mean that for airline operation, still air range will be less than the OEM quotes by 600 to 800 nm.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting A340313X (Reply 30):
Whether MTOWs for the 'E' will be any different for the 'X' is unknown as the 'E' has not yet flown.

all NW recent A333 deliveries have been E version, I believe also CX, I've not seen anywhere that MTOW is affected and JP Fleets shows NW E versions with same MTOW as previous planes (though that doesn't mean you couldn't get a higher weight one, NW may just be standardizing)

does anyone know if the most recent QF A332 order will be for 233K planes?
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 27):
CX manages HKG-SYD ok with 230K A333X. CI A333s (non X) 230K have a 4000nm range with full passenger payload and reserves.

According to Zeke, CX's 233k A333s have a 4000nm range with full payload (pax + cargo), not counting winds.

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
They do not. The first one does not necessarily mean a takeoff at MTOW. For example, you can max a NRT-KIX flight out on payload and still takeoff well below MTOW because you don't need that much fuel for that short a distance. If you want to takeoff at MTOW, you have two options - completely fill the fuel tanks, and accept whatever payload you can take after that, or fill the cabin and cargo holds up to maximum zero fuel weight, and accept whatever fuel you can take after that. In both cases, MTOW will be the same, but one plane will carry less over a longer distance, and the other will carry more over a shorter distance. There are compromises between the two, but you have to decide whether range or payload is the higher priority.

 checkmark  A good explanation.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:05 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 13):
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 9):


Guess you´re right, only A333s in Europe are SK, LH flying to Northeast US.

and


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicholas A Vollaro

 
LRGT
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:29 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 9):
This is why I'm kind of surprised that Airbus didn't sell more A330-300's. It has easily enough range to fly between Europe and eastern North America, enough range to fly from Europe to cover most of Africa, and enough range to fly most east Asian regional routes.

Since these are all medium-range routes, the A330-300 is too big (more frequency on 757/767 sized aircraft is favored). The plane doesn't have the range to perform the routes it's most suited for... quite a shame... way to go Airbus!  Wink

I beleive they should have made an A330-300 ER version with fuel capacity the same as the A340-300 and 2 very powerful engines, giving it slightly MORE range than the A340 (given the better efficiency of 2 engines), and a true "777 killer"

Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
think Airbus should have come earlier with a A330-300 enhanced version with more range payload and bigger engines. Not only did I think so, I opened a thread on it 3,5 yrs ago. Now if only Airbus had listened..

I always thought the same thing, as did a lot of people. Airbus is simply not a very well run company due to lots of buerocracy.
Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
 
A340313X
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 9:03 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:48 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 32):
all NW recent A333 deliveries have been E version, I believe also CX, I've not seen anywhere that MTOW is affected and JP Fleets shows NW E versions with same MTOW as previous planes (though that doesn't mean you couldn't get a higher weight one, NW may just be standardizing)

Of course, I was thinking of GE versions....!
 
WunalaYann
Topic Author
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):

Thank you, it makes sense.

So if I fill up the fuel tanks to the last drop, how much payload can I fit on my 330-343X and then how far can I fly with it?

Is there some sort of graph that would show one variable decreasing (say, range) and the other increasing proportionally (payload, in this case)? I am sure airlines must have thousands of such simulations that they use for their weight balance...

Again, thank you for the explanation!  Smile

Y.
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:01 pm

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 37):
Is there some sort of graph that would show one variable decreasing (say, range) and the other increasing proportionally (payload, in this case)?

Indeed there is, and here is an example:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec3.pdf

The charts start on page 4, and include payload/range charts, takeoff performance charts, and landing performance charts.

Let's say we want to know how far we can fly a 777-200ER after a takeoff from a 9,000ft runway at sea level on a standard day. The first chart we need is on page 10, and tells us that the maximum takeoff weight for that length of runway under those conditions is 620,000lbs (though the MTOW is 656,000lbs - this is because of the shorter runway). That weight includes the fuel, payload and airplane itself. Now we go to the chart on page 5, and find the line for 620,000lbs. This is a line because if we assume that the airplane weighs 320,000lbs (very roughly the average empty weight for a 777-200ER), that leaves room for 300,000lbs worth of fuel+payload. That could be 100,000lbs of fuel and 200,000lbs of payload, or 150,000lbs of fuel and 150,000lbs of payload, or even 250,000lbs of fuel and 50,000lbs of payload. Obviously, the last configuration will have much more range than the first configuration. The top of the line is at the maximum zero fuel weight, and this is how far the airplane will go if you max it out on payload. In this case, about 4900nm. If we assume a airplane+payload weight of 320,000lbs (i.e. no payload at all), the range works out to be about 9250nm - close to twice as much. Interestingly, this is right about at the fuel capacity limit line, which indicates the absolute maximum range that an airplane will fly at a certain weight. It is lower for higher weights because a lighter airplane will climb to the most efficient altitudes faster than a heavier airplane, and thus will spend more time at those altitudes. The lighter airplane will also need less energy to get up to those altitudes, and so burns less fuel in doing so, and so has more fuel left with which to cruise at those more efficent altitudes. This is why it costs fuel to carry fuel.

I hope that all made sense. Unfortunately, to my knowledge Airbus doesn't publish charts like this on their website (they used to show the range in the form of a range/payload chart, but now have switched to the range circles, which are easier for the common layman to read), so I can't tell you where to find one for the A330.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
WunalaYann
Topic Author
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:43 pm

Thanks a million times, now that clears things up even more!

So ranges can actually vary by a factor 2 depending on the payload/fuel configuration. Interesting. No wonder why stupid media keep telling even more stupid viewers/readers that a 380 can fly non-stop CDG-MEL with 550 pax and freight...

 Yeah sure

Thank you again!
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:33 pm

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 37):
Is there some sort of graph that would show one variable decreasing (say, range) and the other increasing proportionally (payload, in this case)? I am sure airlines must have thousands of such simulations that they use for their weight balance...

like these? courtesy of Zeke on another thread
http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S.../docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A330.pdf, can't seem to locate the A340 file right now.
 
karan69
Posts: 2699
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:57 pm

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:18 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 40):
an't seem to locate the A340 file right now.

replace A330 with A340 in the above link

Karan
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: A330-300 Questions

Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:45 pm

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 39):
So ranges can actually vary by a factor 2 depending on the payload/fuel configuration.

Well, it worked out that way in this case, but it isn't always going to be a difference of 100% between full payload and full fuel - it varies by airplane and load.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day

Who is online