Tupolev160
Topic Author
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:07 pm

Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:21 pm

Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787 yet we've heard almost nothing about that aircraft. It was supposed to start being delivered in 2010. Any info on the real performance and whether it is a real match for the B787 or not? Thanks.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:01 pm

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787 yet we've heard almost nothing about that aircraft. It was supposed to start being delivered in 2010. Any info on the real performance and whether it is a real match for the B787 or not? Thanks.

Where have you seen Airbus saying that?

I'd imagine that on the early frames there isn't the double digit percentage improvement that was expected, but given the 787 is 20 years newer then it should still have better fuel consumption despite being slightly over-weight.
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 644
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:07 pm

Well that's Airbus for you...

Korean Air was the first airline that took delivery of the A330HGW when the 787 was falling way behing schedule (they took delivery in 2010). A few month after, they renegotiated their commitment with Boeing for the 787 and as recently as last week they converted to the B789. According to Korean, the A330HGW (6 of them) are a stop-gap measure and will in term be replaced by the "more fuel efficient" B787-900.
Florin
Orlando, FL
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:13 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
Well that's Airbus for you...

Is it? As I asked the OP where is the press release or statement where Airbus say the A330 HGW beats the 787?
 
Tupolev160
Topic Author
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:07 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:46 pm

Right - it contained no data => therefore i asked your opinon/knowledge on it, not to be asked as by children "where is the link, where is the link, where is the link" you can put it in your neck the link...oh God.   
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:07 pm

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 7):
Right - it contained no data => therefore i asked your opinon/knowledge on it, not to be asked as by children "where is the link, where is the link, where is the link" you can put it in your neck the link...oh God.

All I have done is point out that you were incorrect in your initial post. Airbus has NOT stated the A330HGW out-matches the early 787 therefore the entire basis of the thread is flawed.

If you just want comparative data for the 787 and A330 HGW, fair enough. Ask for that. There is no need to make false statements to encourage responses such “well that’s Airbus for you” As no, it isn’t Airbus at all.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:27 pm

This thread is a bit vaguely worded. I believe the premise is that the A332 in its highest takeoff weight form will have more range than the first new build 787s. I don't think that the term outmatches is very appropriate. The low MTOW early build 787s have less range than the competitor they are trying to surpass.

This isn't surprising at all. It's relatively normal. The first 777 had less range than the DC10 that it was intended to replace. The 777 will have more range than the early build A350s.

The word outmatch implies some other criteria, which I don't think are applicable in this case, so I think that is what set off the confusion.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 7):
Right - it contained no data => therefore i asked your opinon/knowledge on it, not to be asked as by children "where is the link, where is the link, where is the link" you can put it in your neck the link...oh God.

The forum rules require a link as it helps the discussion and reduces confusion. Next time you post, I'd suggest you include a reference when when stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins,.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787 yet we've heard almost nothing about that aircraft. It was supposed to start being delivered in 2010. Any info on the real performance

The 238T A330-200s are being used regularly on transpacific routes. They open up smaller long haul routes and allow the A330 to operate routes that were previously the territory of the A340, 777 and 747.

A 5ton weight increase is great for airlines that need it, but isn't going to get a lot of press since it is impossible for the customer to know about it.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:27 pm

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787

Both Boeing and Airbus list the ranges capability of their passenger aircraft at "full passenger payload". This means every seat full, including passenger baggage, but with no revenue cargo. Also included will be assumptions about winds, reserve fuel, etc. There can be a little bit of gamesmanship on the part of both manufacturers in the analysis. Both manufacturers use a seat count is unrealistically high (which actually penalizes airplane range), but a passenger weight and baggage allowance which is unrealistically low (boosting range). The interior weights, winds, reserve fuel etc, also tend to be unrealistically favorable to the airplane for range.

For the reasons above, a simple statement of "our airplane flies 6,840nm and theirs 6,720nm" is really meaningless, unless they are also providing you with all the assumptions which are behind the numbers.

As for the airbus claim of more range, I would suspect the 238t A330-200 has more range than the first 20 787s produced. All other things being equal, those first 20 787s will carry 18,500 lbs less fuel than 787s built at line 21 or later. That's quite a bit of range the early 787s leave in the fuel truck.

The real fallacy of the Airbus statement is not in the range numbers, it is in the fact Airbus wants to compare the A330 they are offering for sale against the earliest of 787s, which is hardly what Boeing is out in the marketplace offering to airlines.

[Edited 2012-02-20 09:37:01]

[Edited 2012-02-20 09:37:40]
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:31 pm

Tupolev160, I guess we can fairly say that the A332 HGW and the current B787 have no comparison as the B787 continues to garner orders and the A332HGW is...(cooked). You could probably say that you answered your own question by knowing of the fact A is trying to extend the longevity of the A330 by offering the A330S to buffer the competition from the B787.

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-...les-performances-de-son-a330-.html

Hello Fpetrutui, do you know how many other airlines ordered this version of A330 and how many were delivered?
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 644
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:07 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 8):
Hello Fpetrutui, do you know how many other airlines ordered this version of A330 and how many were delivered?

I only know of Korean, but some of the features are also found in the F version. I do not think the HGW was a particular successful one when it comes to sales, its fuel burn is nowhere near where the 787 promised to be, especially the 787-900. In my opinion it was a stop-loss attempt to buy more time for the A350 (same as it is the A330S now). They are trying to keep Boeing to add more to the 800+ planes backlog for the 787.
Florin
Orlando, FL
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:17 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 7):
Both Boeing and Airbus list the ranges capability of their passenger aircraft at "full passenger payload". This means every seat full, including passenger baggage, but with no revenue cargo. Also included will be assumptions about winds, reserve fuel, etc.

That's not actually true. The maximum range quoted by Boeing is the range with full standard tanks at MTOW. This is not the same as range with full passenger payload. With full passenger payload, that's maximum operating range. The range quoted for exampe for the 777-300ER is 7930 nautical miles. If you look at the range vs payload charts, this is the second kink in the range payload curve which corresponds to full tanks and not a useful operating payload as the payload useable payload is far less than full passengers.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:49 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 9):
They are trying to keep Boeing to add more to the 800+ planes backlog for the 787.

And so far being pretty successful at it! Net orders for 330 / 787 in 2009: 45 / -59; in 2010: 60 / -4; in 2011: 81 / 13. Total for the last three years: 330: 186; 787: -50, for a difference of 236 units.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:18 pm

The range of the 787 that Boeing has shared, what is it really? LN90?LN20? 8000nm is that with very few passengers?

8000nm seems to be the distance every modern widebody aims for? Why is this?
 
User avatar
Flying Belgian
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 12:45 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:25 pm

One thing is sure, the 787 should have been serviceable since 2008, up to now only 3 frames have been delivered.

Meanwhile, the A330 soars. MSN 1300 is due to be delivered soon. And it remains by very far the best in its category.

Looking at the orders backlog, the A330 has still some arguments for a 20 years old lady...  
Life is great at 41.000 feet...
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:27 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):


The range of the 787 that Boeing has shared, what is it really? LN90?LN20? 8000nm is that with very few passengers?

It is full tanks at MTOW, so the amount of payload differs drastically based on fuel quantity. In reality airplanes almost never dispatch with full tanks, so it is more of a theoretical limit. That is why outside a few outliers (like Copa long haul 737 flights), you never see an airline operating at maximum range. On the A330-200 the maximum range if calculated by Boeing's method would have no passengers at all on it since the airplane can't dispatch at full tanks because of the huge center tank. So comparing manufacturer numbers is hard. The A330-200IGW has 9,200nm if calculated like Boeing does for the 787.

[Edited 2012-02-20 12:31:59]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:35 pm

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 13):
One thing is sure, the 787 should have been serviceable since 2008, up to now only 3 frames have been delivered.

I bet you meant to say that 5 were delivered. I borrow the list from another thread: 787..only Three Deliveries Thus Far? (by HNL-Jack Feb 18 2012 in Civil Aviation)

L/N 8 - JA801A - 9/25/2011 - NH (ANA)
L/N 24 - JA802A - 10/13/2011 - NH (ANA)
L/N 31 - JA805A - 12/30/2011 - NH (ANA)
L/N 41 - JA807A - 1/12/2012 - NH (ANA)
L/N 9 - JA804A - 1/13/2012 - NH (ANA)


BEG2IAH

[Edited 2012-02-20 13:40:39]

[Edited 2012-02-20 14:30:34]
Aviation is not so much a profession as it is a disease.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:25 pm

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 13):

Upon further review... ANA has 5 in service. 787..only Three Deliveries Thus Far? (by HNL-Jack Feb 18 2012 in Civil Aviation) Also, do you agree in part that the success of the A330 was due to the nonavailability of the 787?   
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:52 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 16):
Also, do you agree in part that the success of the A330 was due to the nonavailability of the 787?

How can that be possible as the A330 existed before the 787? If we assume that Airlines actually needed a 787 sized aircraft and didn’t just order them because Boeing were selling them at narrow body prices then had the 787 not existed they would have bought the A330… So no, they bought the A330 because they needed them.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:16 pm

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 17):

I beg to differ on the basis of the obvious, nonavailability. Suppose I run a fleet of cargo ships and my fleet can handle my current volume. I anticipate more contracts for freight and my current vessels are good but there is a better newer styled vessel that I ordered a few years ago that is not on the market yet and my volume is increasing thus stretching my capacity. Do I wait and wait and wait on something that is uncertain?? Or do I accept what is available (Boeing or Airbus) to stop gap the delays with newer, delayed yet better overall vessel??   
 
HeeseokKoo
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:54 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:29 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
According to Korean, the A330HGW (6 of them) are a stop-gap measure and will in term be replaced by the "more fuel efficient" B787-900.

KE ordered first 6 HGW at early 2009, added 5 more at early 2010 (total 11) and started delivery from July 2010. After KE got 4 of them, in March 2011, KE converted 10 788 orders to 789 and deferred delivery from 2012/2013 to 2016. Yes, KE chose 332HGW as an alternative to the delaying 788, but it seems to me that KE satisfied with it and sort of replacing 788. For KE, 788 and 332HGW do similar mission with similar size, and 789 is little bit bigger than both (correct me if I'm wrong). 332HGW is doing what 788 would do - thin long hauls such as LAS, MEL, and soon NBO.

I don't recall Korean ever mentioned that 789 will replace 332HGW, although 789 may replace some of older 332s. There should be some reason behind the fact that only KE operates this type, though.
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:09 am

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 19):
There should be some reason behind the fact that only KE operates this type, though.

Because most operators of a 233K A332 find it more than adequate already?? Lets face it, Japan to most of N America west coast can be done comfortably by a 233K A332 vis DL etc, Korea is just a little further making a few more tons TOW just that more useful. You need more than 5000nm and 250 pax against strong headwinds you'd better find something else.

I see on their acaps Airbus A332F still does not have a higher than 233K WV. You'd think thats where it would be really useful.
 
User avatar
Flying Belgian
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 12:45 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:06 am

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 16):
Also, do you agree in part that the success of the A330 was due to the nonavailability of the 787?

Of course I do, at least for the orders concerning the last five years.

And I do say the 787 is a superb airplane.
Life is great at 41.000 feet...
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:58 am

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787 yet we've heard almost nothing about that aircraft

Please be careful about statements like this.
The only thing Airbus ever said about the 238t A330 was that it would match, or beat, the range/payload of the first 787's off the line. They never even compared the operating costs, much less claimed that the A330 would be better. And rightly so.
But it's entirelty possible that the 238t A330 is at least the equal of the first 20 or so 787's in terms of range/payload, for the reasons given by others above. So Airbus's comments could well be entirely plausible. Because of course..

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
that's Airbus for you...

  

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
Korean Air was the first airline that took delivery of the A330HGW when the 787 was falling way behing schedule (they took delivery in 2010). A few month after, they renegotiated their commitment with Boeing for the 787 and as recently as last week they converted to the B789.

Presumably because the 238t A330 has now filled the gap that the 787's would have occupied, thus removing the need for the 787-8's ...

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 9):
In my opinion it was a stop-loss attempt to buy more time for the A350

In the same way that continuous upgrades to the Boeing 747, 767, and 777 have been, and are, "stop-loss attempt to buy more time", presumably ...   

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 19):
KE ordered first 6 HGW at early 2009, added 5 more at early 2010 (total 11) and started delivery from July 2010. After KE got 4 of them, in March 2011, KE converted 10 788 orders to 789

For obvious reasons. See above

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 19):
There should be some reason behind the fact that only KE operates this type, though.

Are you sure about this?
I'm fairly sure that QF also ordered 238t A330's to stand in for their early 787-8's.
Whilst on the subject, I'm also pretty sure that the 238t upgrade is "retro-fittable" to in-service A330's anyway. In which case I suspect you'd be hard pressed to compile a list of who uses the capability and who doesn't.

Rgds
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13471
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:37 am

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 16):
Also, do you agree in part that the success of the A330 was due to the nonavailability of the 787?

Boeing certainly made a significant contribution to the continued success of the A330. But, what is somewhat shocking, is how little the 767 gained in comparison.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
imiakhtar
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:35 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:11 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
I'm fairly sure that QF also ordered 238t A330's to stand in for their early 787-8's.

Correctamundo:

Qantas's Jetstar opts for higher gross weight A330s

The option provides an extra 3.4t of payload or 610km (330nm) in range compared with the traditional 233t A330-200. Airbus began offering the heavier A330 in 2008, aiming to take advantage of 787 delivery delays, and Buchanan confirms its availability was a key factor in Qantas's decision earlier this year to defer its Boeing 787 deliveries.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
Whilst on the subject, I'm also pretty sure that the 238t upgrade is "retro-fittable" to in-service A330's anyway.

I was not aware of a retro-fit for the HGW. Do you have a link?

Cheers
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:14 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
The only thing Airbus ever said about the 238t A330 was that it would match, or beat, the range/payload of the first 787's off the line. They never even compared the operating costs, much less claimed that the A330 would be better. And rightly so.


And with that statement this thread could be closed imho. Because it has a high risk of fierce debating which easily could go off-topic.  . The A330-HGW is what it is, a very good offering from Airbus which at some point can keep up very well with the earlier B788's. And is part of the still extremely successful and strong selling A330 family.

But as time and developments will progress, the B788 will widen the performance gap in her favor. Which is only normal with new aircraft, since they will never reach their full potential right of the mark.

[Edited 2012-02-21 02:15:26]
 
Tupolev160
Topic Author
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:07 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:17 am

Thank you all for your answers despite the approximate description of the topic, special thanks to Roseflyer whose answer was the most clarifying.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:09 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 18):
I beg to differ on the basis of the obvious, nonavailability. Suppose I run a fleet of cargo ships and my fleet can handle my current volume. I anticipate more contracts for freight and my current vessels are good but there is a better newer styled vessel that I ordered a few years ago that is not on the market yet and my volume is increasing thus stretching my capacity. Do I wait and wait and wait on something that is uncertain?? Or do I accept what is available (Boeing or Airbus) to stop gap the delays with newer, delayed yet better overall vessel??

Okay, sticking with your example and assuming that Boeing had never produced the 787 then when the shipping company anticipated the new contracts they would have ordered the most suitable vessel for their business, which would have been the A330.

My point in this is, Boeing produced the 787 because they saw a demand in this market sector. A demand which would have been met entirely by the A330 had they not produced the 787.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:06 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 14):
On the A330-200 the maximum range if calculated by Boeing's method would have no passengers at all on it since the airplane can't dispatch at full tanks because of the huge center tank.

Why does the A330 have such a huge center tank? I would think that it would have been more valuable to make it smaller and use the space for cargo. Does it have something to do with commonality with the A340 and using the space not needed for the center landing gear? If so, I still do not understand why it could not have been made cargo space; after all, the A340 needed much more fuel than the A330. Having more fuel tank capacity than can ever be used seems to me to be a poor choice, unless it is in the wings where there is no other use for the space. But the center fuselage area is very useful.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4991
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:30 pm

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 24):
I was not aware of a retro-fit for the HGW. Do you have a link?
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-boeing-777-remain-popular-333971/

A332s built after sometime in 2004 can be upfitted to 238 t.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:38 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 28):
Why does the A330 have such a huge center tank? I would think that it would have been more valuable to make it smaller and use the space for cargo. Does it have something to do with commonality with the A340 and using the space not needed for the center landing gear? If so, I still do not understand why it could not have been made cargo space; after all, the A340 needed much more fuel than the A330. Having more fuel tank capacity than can ever be used seems to me to be a poor choice, unless it is in the wings where there is no other use for the space. But the center fuselage area is very useful.

The center tank is the wing box, so the space can't be used for cargo. I don't have detailed access to the A330 system description, so I can't add more than that.

The large center tank is only on the A330-200 and not A330-300 and does have commonality with the A340 which needed more fuel. Essentially the A330-200 can take almost as much fuel as an A340-300 for commonality purposes, but it does not need that much fuel, which throws off the range charts a bit.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
packsonflight
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:40 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 28):
Does it have something to do with commonality with the A340 and using the space not needed for the center landing gear? If so, I still do not understand why it could not have been made cargo space

The center tank is normally inside the center wing box which is a gigantic torque box and otherwise unusable since the front and rear wing spar goes right through it and determine the front and rear of the box.
The wheel well is right behind the wing box.
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:14 am

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 24):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
I'm fairly sure that QF also ordered 238t A330's to stand in for their early 787-8's.

Correctamundo:

Qantas's Jetstar opts for higher gross weight A330s

Every production list I have seen shows Jetstar and Qantas A332s in recent years being -202 models which would indicate they have the 80E1--A4 engine which has a lower thrust than the A3 on some earlier QF A330-203s. If they are increasing TOW and still using the less than most powerful GE engine variant isn't that "odd"??
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:47 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 32):
isn't that "odd"??

It may not be odd, particularly if they are using the airplane at airports near sea level and without a requirement for immediate climb. For example if they were flying the airplane SYD-NRT, they may be able to fly at a high MTOW with less than max thrust. On the other hand, an operator flying out of Addis or Bogota would need the thrust because of the field elevation. An operator flying out of Santiago to Europe would need the thrust in order to quickly climb to get over the Andes. The route will make as much difference as the airplane weight.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:53 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
According to Korean, the A330HGW (6 of them) are a stop-gap measure and will in term be replaced by the "more fuel efficient" B787-900.

Lets see that source, please. I believe you to be making it up.

Also, show me that breakdown for the 238t sales vs the others? I bet you don't have that.

NS
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:54 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 23):
Boeing certainly made a significant contribution to the continued success of the A330. But, what is somewhat shocking, is how little the 767 gained in comparison.

What's really shocking is that the 767 is getting any orders at all on the commercial side, 50 in just the last 25 months.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
SASMD82
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:44 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:05 am

Quoting redflyer (Reply 35):
What's really shocking is that the 767 is getting any orders at all on the commercial side, 50 in just the last 25 months.

I agree with you. With the 787 and the 332 available I do not understand any new 767order. Although the ANA and LAN orders may be plausible owing to their existing B767 fleet.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:57 am

Quoting redflyer (Reply 35):
What's really shocking is that the 767 is getting any orders at all on the commercial side, 50 in just the last 25 months.

Shouldn't we assume that the 767 orders are to a high degree (except fed ex of course) part of the compensation settlements Boeing negotiates with its costomers for the late late late 787 deliveries? Kind of (ceap) Planes instead of cash.

regards

Flyglobal
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:04 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10):
That's not actually true. The maximum range quoted by Boeing is the range with full standard tanks at MTOW.

I also don't believe this is correct. 77W is fuel volume limited at MTOW with a full passenger load. Your formula would require some revenue cargo to be included. 233t A333s have the same "feature".

CM was correct AIUI.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:20 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 31):

The center tank is normally inside the center wing box which is a gigantic torque box and otherwise unusable since the front and rear wing spar goes right through it and determine the front and rear of the box.
The wheel well is right behind the wing box.

But the implication is that the A330 center tank is much larger than in other, comparable airliners. Is that because the A330 uses all of the available space in the wingbox whereas other planes do not?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:24 am

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 37):
Shouldn't we assume that the 767 orders are to a high degree (except fed ex of course) part of the compensation settlements Boeing negotiates with its costomers for the late late late 787 deliveries? Kind of (ceap) Planes instead of cash.

regards

Flyglobal

ANA and JAL both received 9 767’s each as compensation for the 787 delays, but the majority of these were added to the order book more than 2 years ago with only 5 being included in the OP’s 50.

It is worth mentioning however; of the 45 remaining 32 were freighters or tankers, meaning the 767 has only sold 13 passenger frames in 25 months that haven’t been part of a compensation package. This isn’t just a statistical blip either, going back as far as 5 years then you still only get 28 passenger frames sold, in the same time period the A330 has sold ten times that amount!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:05 pm

Quoting thegeek (Reply 38):

I also don't believe this is correct. 77W is fuel volume limited at MTOW with a full passenger load. Your formula would require some revenue cargo to be included. 233t A333s have the same "feature".

With full tanks, the 77W has only 45,000lbs of available payload left with 320,000lbs of fuel. With the current FAA regulation of 225 pounds per passenger including luggage on an international flight, that's only 200 passengers. The 77W just like just about every other Boeing plane will take practical payload hits before being fuel volume limited. Longer range 747s and 772LRs have optional auxiliary tanks.

The 77W takes payload cuts at around 5,800 nm. At Boeing's nominal full passenger load of 365 (which is on the high side), it's range is 6,600nm. At more practical capacity of 300, range is closer to 7,400nm.

My point is that the range quotes given by the manufacturers are hard to use realistically since you need to use the two dimensional range charts. The A330 is a bit of an outlier, so comparing the A330 and 787 on max range alone is not a very good comparison.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:01 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 41):

With full tanks, the 77W has only 45,000lbs of available payload left with 320,000lbs of fuel

How do you figure? I get (sorry, metric):
181283L fuel tank
density @ 15 degrees C (ISA) = .8086 kg/L

Fuel weight = 146.4t
OEW = 167.8t
MTOW = 351.5t

Payload with full tanks = 37t / 81822 lbs
Passengers @ 225lbs = 363

Perhaps you have a heavier OEW?

Hmm, I guess its still coming up with not being fuel volume limited on those figures. I was basing it on Boeing range charts. Recomputing at zero degrees C gives another 3.5t of fuel with full tanks so I wonder if that is what the range chart is based on.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:20 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 41):
With the current FAA regulation of 225 pounds per passenger including luggage

225lbs? You have weighed the luggage, you know how much it is. I believe lifts work on 68kg (150lbs) average per pax, but perhaps that is somewhat too low for the US.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:32 am

Quoting thegeek (Reply 43):

225lbs? You have weighed the luggage, you know how much it is. I believe lifts work on 68kg (150lbs) average per pax, but perhaps that is somewhat too low for the US.

That's the number in the AC that the FAA instructs US airlines to use for weight and balance. 195lbs for the passenger and personal belongings and 30lbs for luggage (in the winter).

I believe the discrepancy may be furnishings and minimum reserves.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:56 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 44):
I believe the discrepancy may be furnishings and minimum reserves.

Furnishings should be included in OEW, and min reserves (assuming fuel) would be included in the full fuel tank.
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?

Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:01 am

Quoting thegeek (Reply 43):
I believe lifts work on 68kg (150lbs) average per pax, but perhaps that is somewhat too low for the US.

Over 2/3 the US adult population are overweight (Body mass index >25) and 1/3 are obese - have a BMI >30