WIederling
Posts: 8970
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:58 am

kmz wrote:
Changing the wing twist sounds like a new wing to me. New psneld, ribs etc. Id this really the case?


They did the same on the A380 without much ado.
If they use the cnc adaptive tooling introduced for the A340NG wings
this might be as small as changing some parameters?
Murphy is an optimist
 
estorilm
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:49 pm

I'm a little surprised about the engine delays - considering the incredible logistical planning and tracking that literally goes into every nut and bolt for the entire aircraft - where it comes from, the routs the bolt takes, who the carriers are, who backup suppliers are - just so they don't end up without a part for an hour or so.

...how is the thing just sitting outside with no engines?

It's actually impressive that airbus was able to punch aircraft #1 out so quickly - and just kinda hang out twiddling their thumbs asking "uh, hellooo, RR, we're readyyy?" On the other hand, at the end of the day it still makes them look bad since they can't "do anything" with the plane now. I'm sure the engineers are getting their paws on it and running calculations and checking stuff, but still.

Personally, I've always thought this was the most elegant aircraft in the skies. I think I was taking pictures at IAD and saw one from the back during flare, and the the inverse curve outward at the wing root became really obvious, something you don't see much outside of 330/340/380. Most other aircraft wings just looks bolted on at a 90* angle.

The massive wing span and thinner chord (at least visually) have always given the aircraft an "organic" look in my opinion - literally like a swan or large bird.

On the other hand, growing up - I always wondered how it got into the air with "such smaller engines than the 777" lol.

It is beautiful though - can someone give some length vs. wingspan numbers for the 330 versus other aircraft? I feel like it's got to be one of the largest spans - this is what gave airbus the cliche "over-winging" stance, but it definitely seems to have paid off. The base 330 design has been used in all variants plus most of the 340 right? And the MRTT.

Wait a sec, will this wing end up on the MRTT production line?
 
Tedd
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:32 am

While it my be a set-back for Airbus not to have the engines ready now, they will be aware of the complexities
involved in introducing a new engine, & just as with RR, they don`t want these turbines attached until they are
good & ready. It`s been announced that's it`s a short delay, so hopefully it`s nothing major mechanically since
most of the engineering is pretty much proven. I`d suggest the Trent 7000 will be worth the wait.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:28 pm

Airbus ACAP documents have been updated and show 5 weight variants for the A330-800, and another 5 weight variants for the A330-900.

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... -Dec16.pdf

All going from 230 to 242t MTOW.

The document als shows the Operating Empty Weight (OEW), which seems to be the same as the A330ceo.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9909
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:32 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
The document als shows the Operating Empty Weight (OEW), which seems to be the same as the A330ceo.

Unless I'm missing it somewhere I don't see OEWs listed for the A330neos. Just Maximum Taxi Weight, Max Ramp Weight, MTOW, Max Landing Weight, and MZFW (pg 60 of the PDF).

Edit nvm found it. 127t for the -900, 124.5t for the -800.
Last edited by Polot on Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:35 pm

Polot wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
The document als shows the Operating Empty Weight (OEW), which seems to be the same as the A330ceo.

Unless I'm missing it somewhere I don't see OEWs listed for the A330neos. Just Maximum Taxi Weight, Max Ramp Weight, MTOW, Max Landing Weight, and MZFW (pg 60 of the PDF).


Image
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9909
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:44 pm

Just out of curiosity was Airbus always advertising the -200/-300 OEW at 124.5t/127t? For some reason I want to say they were not that high but I could be wrong (and considering how much Airbus has changed the MTOW can be hard to determine what info is most up to date).
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:45 pm

Polot wrote:
Just out of curiosity was Airbus always advertising the -200/-300 OEW at 124.5t/127t?


At least for the last 4-5 years. I didn't follow the documents before.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:57 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Polot wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
The document als shows the Operating Empty Weight (OEW), which seems to be the same as the A330ceo.

Unless I'm missing it somewhere I don't see OEWs listed for the A330neos. Just Maximum Taxi Weight, Max Ramp Weight, MTOW, Max Landing Weight, and MZFW (pg 60 of the PDF).


Image


Interesting that the only place that OEW is published is buried inside the jacking instructions part of the document.

MZFW went up by 8 tons if i read the document correctly. It is rather unusual to have MZFW changing like that without if OEW wasn't changing at all since the airplane size is constant. Not impossible, just not what I would expect since I wouldn't expect them to be adding payload capability on a re-engine like this. I would have expected payload to be kept constant, but I certainly could be wrong. Maybe the A330-300 was low on payload.

I wonder if they updated the jacking section to include the A339 dimensions but chose not to update OEW until the next revision?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13492
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:13 pm

Hate to say it, but my estimation for empty weight (in the A339 vs 789 thread) seems to have some ground, seeing the above publication. Not everyone was convinced..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:28 pm

keesje wrote:
Hate to say it, but my estimation for empty weight (in the A339 vs 789 thread) seems to have some ground, seeing the above publication. Not everyone was convinced..


It seems rather strange that Airbus is showing a 2% reduction in fuel efficiency on the A330-900 due to weight if Airbus is able to keep OEW constant. Something doesn't add up with that 127,000 Kg OEW being the same on the A333 and A339. Where did the weight reduction come from if it has heavier engines and strutural mods?

Image
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:33 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
It seems rather strange that Airbus is showing a 2% reduction in fuel efficiency on the A330-900 due to weight if Airbus is able to keep OEW constant.


The larger engine creates more drag.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:40 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
It seems rather strange that Airbus is showing a 2% reduction in fuel efficiency on the A330-900 due to weight if Airbus is able to keep OEW constant.


The larger engine creates more drag.


In case you couldn't see the chart I posted, which came from a Leeham article, Airbus is showing in marketing charts a 1% increase in fuel burn due to drag and 2% due to weight. Something doesn't make sense. I suspect that the 127,000 Kg values in the jacking chart may not be completely accurate, but that is a guess.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:48 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
In case you couldn't see the chart I posted, which came from a Leeham article, Airbus is showing in marketing charts a 1% increase in fuel burn due to drag and 2% due to weight. Something doesn't make sense.


I see what you mean.

The chart is 3 years old and was published during the launch of the A330neo in 2014. We don't really know how good or bad the development phase was. However, I came across the following article:

Airbus believes it can almost fully negate the weight increase of the new A330neo by implementing a reduction exercise to trim structure across the entire A330 airframe.

It intends to shed 800kg of weight as it develops the re-engined aircraft, to offset the modifications required to accommodate the larger Rolls-Royce Trent 7000 powerplants.

“We’re trying to head back to an almost neutral [weight] position,” said Airbus executive vice-president for programmes Tom Williams during the Farnborough air show.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... em-401664/

Maybe Airbus and/or RR did a bit better than initially planned.

Newbiepilot wrote:
I suspect that the 127,000 Kg values in the jacking chart may not be completely accurate, but that is a guess.


Could be, we don't know. Though the Flightglobal article above suggests weight increase would have been minimal, and maybe they did a little better than planned.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:58 pm

That flightglobal article is also from 2014, so it is from the same timeframe where Airbus was showing a 2% increase in fuel consumption due to weight increases. While it is entirely possible that Airbus was able to do a weight reduction campaign to get the NEO closer to weight neutral, I would have expected Airbus to change its marketing pitches that have been shared in various places and show a 16% fuel efficiency gain if they succeeded in the weight reduction effort. This still seems strange to me.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:01 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
That flightglobal article is also from 2014, so it is from the same timeframe where Airbus was showing a 2% increase in fuel consumption due to weight increases.


Yes, but that was not the point. The point was that Airbus back in 2014 aimed at a minimal weight increase. If the OEW as published today remains unchanged, it may suggest they shaved off more weight than originally planned.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Strato2
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:05 pm

I seem to remember reading A330 had some unneeded structures built in because of the commonality with the A340? Have these been removed already or will they be for the NEO?
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:08 pm

MZFW provides a useful insight into the MWE (MEW) of the A330neo relative to the like A330 model. An increase in MZFW is typically either to compensate for increased MWE to maintain structural payload capability or to allow higher structural payloads to be carried - or a blend of both. OWE (OEW) is a less reliable metric as it estimates operator items that have a tendency to exceed OEM estimates even if these are achievable.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:14 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
That flightglobal article is also from 2014, so it is from the same timeframe where Airbus was showing a 2% increase in fuel consumption due to weight increases.


Yes, but that was not the point. The point was that Airbus back in 2014 aimed at a minimal weight increase. If the OEW as published today remains unchanged, it may suggest they shaved off more weight than originally planned.


You may be correct. Bravo to the Airbus engineering team if they were able to start with a goal of 800Kgs of weight reduction, but were able to reduce weight by 3200Kgs. I would have expected the pylon/strut weight to increase with the heavier engine and also some weight increases regarding the longer span and wing to body mods. The Trent 7000 engines are supposed to weigh 3500lbs more each (7000lbs or 3200Kgs total) than the A330 Trent 700.

https://airinsight.com/2014/07/23/new-r ... rent-7000/
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:19 pm

Wildlander wrote:
MZFW provides a useful insight into the MWE (MEW) of the A330neo relative to the like A330 model. An increase in MZFW is typically either to compensate for increased MWE to maintain structural payload capability or to allow higher structural payloads to be carried - or a blend of both. OWE (OEW) is a less reliable metric as it estimates operator items that have a tendency to exceed OEM estimates even if these are achievable.


According to the ACAP MZFW is going up 6-8tons depending on what you compare it to. The ACAP only has a 238t A339 and not a 242t airplane. Would variables factoring into OEW be enough to mask a change in MEW? What do you think 6-8tons higher MZFW means regarding empty weight?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13492
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:44 pm

In the OP assumed A330-300 OEW is around 123T, and the A330-900NEO around 270k lbs, 127T.
http://www.team.aero/images/aviation_data_insert/Owners_OperatorsGuide_A330.pdf

For the 787-9 I took OEW at 129T.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:57 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
That flightglobal article is also from 2014, so it is from the same timeframe where Airbus was showing a 2% increase in fuel consumption due to weight increases.


Yes, but that was not the point. The point was that Airbus back in 2014 aimed at a minimal weight increase. If the OEW as published today remains unchanged, it may suggest they shaved off more weight than originally planned.


You may be correct. Bravo to the Airbus engineering team if they were able to start with a goal of 800Kgs of weight reduction, but were able to reduce weight by 3200Kgs. I would have expected the pylon/strut weight to increase with the heavier engine and also some weight increases regarding the longer span and wing to body mods. The Trent 7000 engines are supposed to weigh 3500lbs more each (7000lbs or 3200Kgs total) than the A330 Trent 700.

https://airinsight.com/2014/07/23/new-r ... rent-7000/


There is no reason to be sarcastic. I'm sure Airbus will explain the OEW sooner or later.

As for engine weight, I do not understand how AirInsight came to that conclusion. Based on EASA certification documents, I was able to find the following:

Dry weight
- Trent 700: 6160 kg
- Trent 1000-TEN: 6033 kg

How on earth does the Trent 7000 - a Trent 1000-TEN derivative - becomes 1600 kg heavier?

Ref https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... e%2003.pdf
Ref https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... 07_1.0.pdf
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:27 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:

Yes, but that was not the point. The point was that Airbus back in 2014 aimed at a minimal weight increase. If the OEW as published today remains unchanged, it may suggest they shaved off more weight than originally planned.


You may be correct. Bravo to the Airbus engineering team if they were able to start with a goal of 800Kgs of weight reduction, but were able to reduce weight by 3200Kgs. I would have expected the pylon/strut weight to increase with the heavier engine and also some weight increases regarding the longer span and wing to body mods. The Trent 7000 engines are supposed to weigh 3500lbs more each (7000lbs or 3200Kgs total) than the A330 Trent 700.

https://airinsight.com/2014/07/23/new-r ... rent-7000/


There is no reason to be sarcastic. I'm sure Airbus will explain the OEW sooner or later.

As for engine weight, I do not understand how AirInsight came to that conclusion. Based on EASA certification documents, I was able to find the following:

Dry weight
- Trent 700: 6160 kg
- Trent 1000-TEN: 6033 kg

How on earth does the Trent 7000 - a Trent 1000-TEN derivative - becomes 1600 kg heavier?

Ref https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... e%2003.pdf
Ref https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... 07_1.0.pdf



I was not being sarcastic at all. Bravo to Airbus if they can get that much weight out of the A330neo.

The numbers from the airinsight article are from an interview with Richard Goodhead, VP of Customer Marketing from Rolls Royce so they should be very accurate. Here is the statement:

The fan hub for the Trent 7000 is smaller than the hub for the Trent 700, enabling additional improvement in the bypass ratio without having to further increase fan size. The smaller hub saves more than an inch in fan diameter, and associated additional weight. Of course, with a fan that is 15% larger, the low pressure turbine requires two more stages to move the additional size. That combination will make the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 700. Even with that additional weight, and additional drag from the larger fan, the Trent 7000 delivers 11% better fuel burn on wing than the Trent 700.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:29 pm

keesje wrote:
In the OP assumed A330-300 OEW is around 123T, and the A330-900NEO around 270k lbs, 127T.
http://www.team.aero/images/aviation_data_insert/Owners_OperatorsGuide_A330.pdf

For the 787-9 I took OEW at 129T.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf


But the ACAP also has a weight of 127T for the A330 300. Do you think the ACAP uses an overinflated A333 OEW?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26608
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:33 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
In the OP assumed A330-300 OEW is around 123T, and the A330-900NEO around 270k lbs, 127T.
http://www.team.aero/images/aviation_data_insert/Owners_OperatorsGuide_A330.pdf

For the 787-9 I took OEW at 129T.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf


But the ACAP also has a weight of 127T for the A330 300. Do you think the ACAP uses an overinflated A333 OEW?


It shouldn't, since Airbus should know what their planes weigh in an OEM configuration (I assume this is two classes).
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:34 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I was not being sarcastic at all. Bravo to Airbus if they can get that much weight out of the A330neo.

The numbers from the airinsight article are from an interview with Richard Goodhead, VP of Customer Marketing from Rolls Royce so they should be very accurate. Here is the statement:

The fan hub for the Trent 7000 is smaller than the hub for the Trent 700, enabling additional improvement in the bypass ratio without having to further increase fan size. The smaller hub saves more than an inch in fan diameter, and associated additional weight. Of course, with a fan that is 15% larger, the low pressure turbine requires two more stages to move the additional size. That combination will make the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 700. Even with that additional weight, and additional drag from the larger fan, the Trent 7000 delivers 11% better fuel burn on wing than the Trent 700.


As I'm not an engine expert, the question stands: how does the Trent 7000 - a Trent 1000-TEN derivative with an equal dry weight as the Trent 700 - becomes 1600 kg heavier? The article doesn't explain.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:40 pm

Stitch wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
In the OP assumed A330-300 OEW is around 123T, and the A330-900NEO around 270k lbs, 127T.
http://www.team.aero/images/aviation_data_insert/Owners_OperatorsGuide_A330.pdf

For the 787-9 I took OEW at 129T.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf


But the ACAP also has a weight of 127T for the A330 300. Do you think the ACAP uses an overinflated A333 OEW?


It shouldn't, since Airbus should know what their planes weigh in an OEM configuration (I assume this is two classes).



127 T is a reasonable value for a 2-class A333, thats what ours weigh. Bear in mind this is Dry Operating Weight, i.e. airplane+crew+pantry. Basic Weight (i.e. no crew, no catering) is about 122 T

ACAP DOW numbers for A333 are therefore realistic, so they should be realistic for A339 too
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26608
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:52 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
As I'm not an engine expert, the question stands: how does the Trent 7000 - a Trent 1000-TEN derivative with an equal dry weight as the Trent 700 - becomes 1600 kg heavier? The article doesn't explain.


Maybe it's the bleed-air system the Trent 7000 adds?

Or maybe the1600kg figure is referring to the weight of a pair of engines? So 800kg each instead of 1600kg?
Last edited by Stitch on Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:52 pm

keesje wrote:
In the OP assumed A330-300 OEW is around 123T, and the A330-900NEO around 270k lbs, 127T.

I think you are getting lost in the various threads. There is no OEW in the OP of this thread, I presume you meant the OP of the A339 vs 787-9 thread.

To the best of my knowledge (this is straight from the weighting reports of our fleet), 123 tonnes corresponds to the basic empty weight of an A330-300. It's a good average, although, most are a bit lower. The OEW is 4-7 tonnes higher than BEW, depending on the pantry.

Airbus told us last year that the empty weight of an A339 will be 6 tonnes higher than an A333. I hope it is less, though, it would even be awesome if Airbus could keep it the empty weight the same, but I don't think that is realistic.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm

Wildlander wrote:
OWE (OEW) is a less reliable metric as it estimates operator items that have a tendency to exceed OEM estimates even if these are achievable.


I tend to agree. There is a reason why Airbus removed the OEW from the A350 ACAP documents. Even Boeing is cautious on providing OEW numbers, they didn't include the 787-9 OEW until last year, some 2 years after the -9 entered service.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 568
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:00 pm

Stitch wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
As I'm not an engine expert, the question stands: how does the Trent 7000 - a Trent 1000-TEN derivative with an equal dry weight as the Trent 700 - becomes 1600 kg heavier? The article doesn't explain.


Maybe it's the bleed-air system the Trent 7000 adds?


Conversly, it has a much smaller generator and gearbox to drive it.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:04 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Wildlander wrote:
MZFW provides a useful insight into the MWE (MEW) of the A330neo relative to the like A330 model. An increase in MZFW is typically either to compensate for increased MWE to maintain structural payload capability or to allow higher structural payloads to be carried - or a blend of both. OWE (OEW) is a less reliable metric as it estimates operator items that have a tendency to exceed OEM estimates even if these are achievable.


According to the ACAP MZFW is going up 6-8tons depending on what you compare it to. The ACAP only has a 238t A339 and not a 242t airplane. Would variables factoring into OEW be enough to mask a change in MEW? What do you think 6-8tons higher MZFW means regarding empty weight?


I'm not understanding why you believe Airbus must "mask" the OEW. It's not like the OEW is a big secret. They could have simply removed the OEW from the documents if they wanted. So either it's a typo, or they achieved some weight savings.

Too much conflicting information. I'm going to sit on the fence on this one.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:13 pm

I am on the fence too grading what the OEW difference will be. I expect the A339 will weigh more though. We have one document with the A333 and A339 having the same OEW and then we have sf260 saying that the difference will be close to 6 tons.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8970
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:34 pm

Polot wrote:
Edit nvm found it. 127t for the -900, 124.5t for the -800.


Boah, Eyh!
If they manage that ...
Murphy is an optimist
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:35 pm

I also think the whole debate about the empty weight of the A339 is pointless wihtout having any reliable (insider) Airbus information. Airbus told us that it will be 6t heavier than the current A330, but they might just do that to cover up that asses if the initial production frames turn out to be overweight.

In my opinion, it is very unlikely that the empty weight will not increase. The engines wil definitely be heavier (increased fan diameter, more spools). This means that also the pylons will need to be stronger. Then the wings will also gain weight (increased span & MZFW & engine weight) as strengthening is required.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13492
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:10 am

I thought there was general consensus the NEO would be 4-6T heavier than the CEO.

Slightly lighter then the 787-9, I doubt it keeps anybody awake..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26608
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:33 am

keesje wrote:
I thought there was general consensus the NEO would be 4-6T heavier than the CEO.

Slightly lighter then the 787-9, I doubt it keeps anybody awake..


An increase of 4000-6000kg over the A330-300's OEM OEW would make the A330-900 heavier than the 787-9, but agreed, I doubt it would keep anybody awake...
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:01 pm

The second A330neo emerged from paint:

Image
2nd Airbus A330-900 Neo F-WWTE by Jujug Spotting, on Flickr

Image
2nd Airbus A330-900 Neo F-WWTE by Jujug Spotting, on Flickr
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:04 pm

Another angle:

Image
A330-900 NEO by Rami Khanna-Prade, on Flickr
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2804
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:23 pm

Those winglets aren't as pretty as I thought.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14405
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:30 pm

It is difficult to compare the Trent 700 and Trent 1000 dry mass according to the TCDS, the T700 does not include the nacelle EBU where the T1000 does. If the nacelle EBU is included on the T7000 then its mass should be greater than the T700.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 8970
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:33 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Those winglets aren't as pretty as I thought.


Looks like they start with a slight down sweep before they curl up and back?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
MaxiAir
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:02 pm

Have you noticed the registration ?

F-WWTTE ...

I guess a W or a T is a spare? In case the other one breaks or gets lost? :shock: :eyepopping:
Flown on - 306,313,318,319,320,321,332,333,343,345,346,359,35K,388, 712,733,734,735,736,73G,738,744,748,752,753,763,77E,77L,77W, 788, 789, M11, M1F, M88, CR7,CR9, E35,E45,E75,E90,E95, AR1,AR8, DHT,DH1,DH4, and some more ;)
 
WIederling
Posts: 8970
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:21 pm

MaxiAir wrote:
Have you noticed the registration ?

F-WWTTE ...

I guess a W or a T is a spare? In case the other one breaks or gets lost? :shock: :eyepopping:


f-wtte ??
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... -Industrie

New TV-Show : Airbus, The Apprentice :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
bycac
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:16 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:36 pm

An other ;-)

Image
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:07 pm

[*]in
WIederling wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Those winglets aren't as pretty as I thought.


Looks like they start with a slight down sweep before they curl up and back?


It's just the raked portion that makes it look that way.
The A330NEO wings are raked on the ends like the 787's wings.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9202
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:14 pm

If the jacking numbers for the A330-900 are including an an OEW, than I assume it to be the highest expected OEW not some medium or low weight equipped A330-900. The same would go for the A330-300.
Regarding the weight difference, the earliest number of 6 t higher OEW of the -900 compared to the -300 are the numbers at launch. We saw a bit later 4 t. The most recent indication of the weight coming from Airbus was Frank Williams: “We’re trying to head back to an almost neutral [weight] position,”
It is still possible that the jacking weight numbers are just a copy past and not exact. But if the indication of the numbers are right, than there are two important points: the A330-300 will not have an advantage over the A330-900 on short routes and the A330-900 will have a payload and perhaps fuel burn advantage over the 787-9, until the A330-900 hits MTOW.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13492
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:26 pm

WIederling wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Those winglets aren't as pretty as I thought.


Looks like they start with a slight down sweep before they curl up and back?


Yes

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14405
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:44 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
If the jacking numbers for the A330-900 are including an an OEW, than I assume it to be the highest expected OEW not some medium or low weight equipped A330-900. The same would go for the A330-300.
Regarding the weight difference, the earliest number of 6 t higher OEW of the -900 compared to the -300 are the numbers at launch. We saw a bit later 4 t. The most recent indication of the weight coming from Airbus was Frank Williams: “We’re trying to head back to an almost neutral [weight] position,”
It is still possible that the jacking weight numbers are just a copy past and not exact. But if the indication of the numbers are right, than there are two important points: the A330-300 will not have an advantage over the A330-900 on short routes and the A330-900 will have a payload and perhaps fuel burn advantage over the 787-9, until the A330-900 hits MTOW.


The jacking numbers have nothing to do with what an operator will see, that chart is for the maximum loads a MRO etc would need to cater for when purchasing tools or building a hanger. People were getting bent out of shape over similar number in the A350 ACAPS (142 tonnes), they are not what operators are seeing. The purpose of the ACAPS document is for people designing airports and facilities some data on how to plan for the aircraft. It is not a controlled engineering document for operational use.

Also be careful with units, people are sliding in the tons, t, T, tonnes etc into the posts which makes things look worse than they are.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9202
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330 NEO Production And Delivery Thread Part 1

Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:54 pm

zeke wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
If the jacking numbers for the A330-900 are including an an OEW, than I assume it to be the highest expected OEW not some medium or low weight equipped A330-900. The same would go for the A330-300.
Regarding the weight difference, the earliest number of 6 t higher OEW of the -900 compared to the -300 are the numbers at launch. We saw a bit later 4 t. The most recent indication of the weight coming from Airbus was Frank Williams: “We’re trying to head back to an almost neutral [weight] position,”
It is still possible that the jacking weight numbers are just a copy past and not exact. But if the indication of the numbers are right, than there are two important points: the A330-300 will not have an advantage over the A330-900 on short routes and the A330-900 will have a payload and perhaps fuel burn advantage over the 787-9, until the A330-900 hits MTOW.


The jacking numbers have nothing to do with what an operator will see, that chart is for the maximum loads a MRO etc would need to cater for when purchasing tools or building a hanger. People were getting bent out of shape over similar number in the A350 ACAPS (142 tonnes), they are not what operators are seeing. The purpose of the ACAPS document is for people designing airports and facilities some data on how to plan for the aircraft. It is not a controlled engineering document for operational use.

Also be careful with units, people are sliding in the tons, t, T, tonnes etc into the posts which makes things look worse than they are.


The simple t is the sign for a metric ton, 1,000 kg.

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