Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
MON
Topic Author
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:54 am

A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:01 am

The capability of the A330-300 has greatly improved since first flight to new -300s and will greatly improve again with the introduction of the same length -900neo.

Just about all other modern airliners have had later stretched versions introduced, has the A330 ever been considered for a stretch? Considering the wing loading of the A330 is very low, the new MTOWs have increased, and the gear geometry would appear to allow a simple, cheap, stretch, so has it been considered? I would have thought a regional stretched A330 in some markets would have a strong position over A340/350s?
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:31 am

Given that the A330 and A340 are essentially the same aircraft family, Airbus could relatively easily produce an A330 the same length as the A345 (68m) or A346 (75m).

I suspect that the reason Airbus has not gone ahead with either of those is because not enough, if any, airlines have shown sufficient interest in an aircraft with the capabilities that would result from such a stretch.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2574
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:51 am

speedbored wrote:
Given that the A330 and A340 are essentially the same aircraft family, Airbus could relatively easily produce an A330 the same length as the A345 (68m) or A346 (75m).

I suspect that the reason Airbus has not gone ahead with either of those is because not enough, if any, airlines have shown sufficient interest in an aircraft with the capabilities that would result from such a stretch.


..or that perhaps, given how good and efficient the 330 still is, it could easily encroach on the A350?... ;) :ugeek:
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:55 am

speedbored wrote:
I suspect that the reason Airbus has not gone ahead with either of those is because not enough, if any, airlines have shown sufficient interest in an aircraft with the capabilities that would result from such a stretch.

Well that, and 1) the reinforcement needed to lengthen that fuselage added to the OEW deadweight that was the A340NG's doom, and 2) it'd eat into the A35K's capacity market.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:12 am

LAX772LR wrote:
the reinforcement needed to lengthen that fuselage added to the OEW deadweight that was the A340NG's doom

Which is part of the reason for the lack of interest in the aircraft's capabilities.

oldannyboy wrote:
..or that perhaps, given how good and efficient the 330 still is, it could easily encroach on the A350?
LAX772LR wrote:
it'd eat into the A35K's capacity market.

Yes, possibly. But, given that the A350 line is so oversold, I'm not sure that this would have been too much of a concern for Airbus - it would simply have allowed them to get more aircraft out the door more quickly.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:48 am

It could be done, but the risk is an aircraft rather like the 764 - a stretch of a fine aircraft, but a little short on range and capability compared to more capable alternatives. It would probably be quite attractive to A330 operators with significant transatlantic operations, but the extra range of alternatives would be better for most.

Despite being cheap to develop and with decent range the 764 was far outsold by the 330/777 - I suspect an A330stretch would fare similarly against the 787/A350. Airbus chose not to make the NEO a stretch.
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:35 am

Airbus seriously contemplated building an A330-400 for Asian customers for whom range was not an issue over regional routes. It would have added around 50 seats. Despite the real prospect of attracting launch orders Airbus management decided that the market was not big enough. Most potential customers then went on to buy the 777-300 which sold around 50 frames if I remember well. Not an astounding sales success so the Airbus decision was probably right, unless you take the view that the 777-300 was a necessary step ahead of the 300ER.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:26 pm

Image

Capacity would overlap with A359, payload-range, availability, price and fleet commonality less. Design challenges seem unimpressive. E.g. the A340-500 fuselage was certified 15 yrs ago.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:25 pm

Wildlander wrote:
Airbus seriously contemplated building an A330-400 for Asian customers for whom range was not an issue over regional routes. It would have added around 50 seats. Despite the real prospect of attracting launch orders Airbus management decided that the market was not big enough. Most potential customers then went on to buy the 777-300 which sold around 50 frames if I remember well. Not an astounding sales success so the Airbus decision was probably right, unless you take the view that the 777-300 was a necessary step ahead of the 300ER.


The problem is you can already fit 440 seats in the A333, so if you want more seats than that you have to add an additional emergency exit.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:36 pm

zeke wrote:
Wildlander wrote:
Airbus seriously contemplated building an A330-400 for Asian customers for whom range was not an issue over regional routes. It would have added around 50 seats. Despite the real prospect of attracting launch orders Airbus management decided that the market was not big enough. Most potential customers then went on to buy the 777-300 which sold around 50 frames if I remember well. Not an astounding sales success so the Airbus decision was probably right, unless you take the view that the 777-300 was a necessary step ahead of the 300ER.


The problem is you can already fit 440 seats in the A333, so if you want more seats than that you have to add an additional emergency exit.


I just did a quick sample on seatguru for A330-300 seatcounts (Delta, Lufthansa, American, Turkish, Asiana, China Southern and Thai). 2-4 class configurations are around 280-300 seats. Even WoW single class is 342, AirAsia 377 (9 abreast). A carefull conclusion could be the 440 seat door configuration would be sufficient for a moderate ~5m/row stretch.
Didn't know LH flies their A333s premium heavy 4 class. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Lufthansa/Lufthansa_Airbus_A330-300_C.php
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:43 pm

when the -400 was contemplated, a typical Asian layout was closer to 300 seats and the LCCs such as AirAsia X were still to emerge so 440 was not considered a constraint. but the point is well made that any future stretch proposal would face this challenge. I suspect that Airbus will favour the A350-900 in any sales efforts where a higher capacity A330 might seem sufficient, but never say never. The A330 has a history of outperforming expectations including, dare I suggest, those in the minds of Boeing strategists
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:21 pm

I took a look at known A330NEO specifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo#Specifications

At first glance the 5m stretch of -800 to -900 weighs 5000kg/11000lbs.

Because the MTOW stays the same, the -900 gives in ~1000NM range while carrying 3000kg more passenger/luggage.

We are talking about the 242t MTOW variants here.

Airbus has all but announced 245t allowance and I assume for a -1000 2t (1%) extra on that, for a MTOW of around 247t.

Adding 4 rows (32 people) / 3t, plus 5t of structure/systems on the -900 leaves adds about 8t.

If 5 of that can be absorbed by the higher MTOW, fuel capacity would be cut by about 3t, reducing range by ~400NM.

So ~6100NM for a 320 seat 3 class typical configuration. Only real long haul flights out of Asia fall out.

I realize there's way to much assumptions & ignored parameters here

:spin:

Technical it seems all doable with a overseeable budget / time table.

The overall commercial trade-off in regards to the A359 and 787-10 seems far more leading here.


FYE, I remember discussing a A330-400 NEO almost a decade ago. http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/313411-airbus-a330-400-high-capacity-medium-range-study.html
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:00 pm

.
For reference the 787-10 is 68.3 meters and has the same 440 seat exit limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Specifications

Image
http://nyc787.blogspot.nl/

The 787 has a wider cabin, making 9 abreast more viable than on a A330.

So to really throw a rock in the pond, Airbus should make it 2-3m/ rows longer at 70-71m. In that case having existing A330 or 787 fleets becomes important.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:20 pm

keesje wrote:
.
For reference the 787-10 is 68.3 meters and has the same 440 seat exit limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Specifications

Image
http://nyc787.blogspot.nl/

The 787 has a wider cabin, making 9 abreast more viable than on a A330.

So to really throw a rock in the pond, Airbus should make it 2-3m/ rows longer at 70-71m. In that case having existing A330 or 787 fleets becomes important.


This would be a short range people mover. 9 across in an A330 would be acceptable here.
to go beyond 440 pax you'd need another set of doors. inefficient.
So probably no A330-1000 :-(
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:40 pm

WIederling wrote:

This would be a short range people mover. 9 across in an A330 would be acceptable here.
to go beyond 440 pax you'd need another set of doors. inefficient.
So probably no A330-1000 :-(


Most of the A330-300s are not short haul / single class people movers, but medium / long haul 2-3 class 300 seaters.

No reason why a A330-1000 would be different. And even so, for the A330-300, 400+ seat configurations seem a small minority.
WoW A333 single class is 342 seats, AirAsia 377 ( at 9 abreast). Famous Philippine Airlines nose to tail 3-3-3 (414 seats), Corsair 360 seats.

If Lufthansa would buy a A330-1000 for Atlantic flights, it would probably seat 250 passenegers. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Lufthansa/Lufthansa_Airbus_A330-300_C.php
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:09 pm

An opening post from me of 2 years ago asked this question:

"Airbus has a twin aisle offerings of A330, A350 and A380 which have all been designed for long range (but not ULR).

Boeing is building only long range aircraft, but has 787-10 on the stocks for the medium range market.

Is it sensible to suggest Airbus could fit their existing 20% longer A340-600 fuselage on the existing 242 tonne A330neo wings, engines and landing gear, to create a medium range high capacity A330-1000?

This just uses the existing kit of parts, and seems to deliver a low capital cost entry into this medium range market, particularly TATL but also worldwide? As the A330neos are due to EIS from 2017, the A330-1000 could presumably EIS in 2019 and be very competitive? Could this be the sort of low capital cost plane that for instance Delta might purchase, instead of the higher capital cost B787-10, with its slightly lower operating costs per seat?"

I think I had a good point then, and I think it is a better point now. This aeroplane's only competition would be the high capital cost 787-10, which could be knocked into a cocked hat. If the bodged A340-600 overweight fuselage could be re-designed to add some lightness it would be even better.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:19 pm

WIederling wrote:
keesje wrote:
.
For reference the 787-10 is 68.3 meters and has the same 440 seat exit limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Specifications

Image
http://nyc787.blogspot.nl/

The 787 has a wider cabin, making 9 abreast more viable than on a A330.

So to really throw a rock in the pond, Airbus should make it 2-3m/ rows longer at 70-71m. In that case having existing A330 or 787 fleets becomes important.


This would be a short range people mover. 9 across in an A330 would be acceptable here.
to go beyond 440 pax you'd need another set of doors. inefficient.
So probably no A330-1000 :-(


Adding a set of half sized doors over the wing is not that inefficient or difficult. Adding some exits isn't that hard in a stretch.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:40 pm

Egerton wrote:
An opening post from me of 2 years ago asked this question:

"Airbus has a twin aisle offerings of A330, A350 and A380 which have all been designed for long range (but not ULR).

Boeing is building only long range aircraft, but has 787-10 on the stocks for the medium range market.

Is it sensible to suggest Airbus could fit their existing 20% longer A340-600 fuselage on the existing 242 tonne A330neo wings, engines and landing gear, to create a medium range high capacity A330-1000?

This just uses the existing kit of parts, and seems to deliver a low capital cost entry into this medium range market, particularly TATL but also worldwide? As the A330neos are due to EIS from 2017, the A330-1000 could presumably EIS in 2019 and be very competitive? Could this be the sort of low capital cost plane that for instance Delta might purchase, instead of the higher capital cost B787-10, with its slightly lower operating costs per seat?"

I think I had a good point then, and I think it is a better point now. This aeroplane's only competition would be the high capital cost 787-10, which could be knocked into a cocked hat. If the bodged A340-600 overweight fuselage could be re-designed to add some lightness it would be even better.


The A330-300 has been medium range for the last 20 years. An A340-600 like stretch seems a bridge to far. Requiring significant modifications to wing, landing gear for an enormous capacity jump / range reduction. Risk written all over it.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:46 pm

Short haul dense people mover.Mmmmmm let me think Ahh Air -bus.Yup tried it didn't work then ,won't work now (for short haul).
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27218
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:52 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Adding a set of half sized doors over the wing is not that inefficient or difficult. Adding some exits isn't that hard in a stretch.


They two Type III exit doors on the A340-600 weigh around 500kg per Airbus statements and I believe the two Type A exit doors on the 777-300ER are around double that per Boeing comments on why they were omitted on the 777-9 in favor of an optional smaller exit door after of the wing. You also lose seating in that area. So overall, the penalty for having them generally seems to be such that the OEMs would rather not if they can.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7308
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:50 pm

Keep in mind todays A333 is a far cry from the first batch of A333s. It may have been possible for Airbus to do it since they extended the A340. It would have been one hell of a machine and I'm sure Boeing is happy that Airbus didn't do it. That would have been a huge blow to the 777.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10699
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:54 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
Keep in mind todays A333 is a far cry from the first batch of A333s. It may have been possible for Airbus to do it since they extended the A340. It would have been one hell of a machine and I'm sure Boeing is happy that Airbus didn't do it. That would have been a huge blow to the 777.


The 777's payload range would have blown it out of the water though. A stretch A333 would have probably hurt the A333 just as much.

Now it is the A359 that is preventing Airbus from doing it.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7308
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:19 pm

Polot wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Keep in mind todays A333 is a far cry from the first batch of A333s. It may have been possible for Airbus to do it since they extended the A340. It would have been one hell of a machine and I'm sure Boeing is happy that Airbus didn't do it. That would have been a huge blow to the 777.


The 777's payload range would have blown it out of the water though. A stretch A333 would have probably hurt the A333 just as much.

Now it is the A359 that is preventing Airbus from doing it.

A simple stretch wouldn't have done much, but an A340-500/600 stretch (new wing, beefier MLG, new engines (not quite todays A330neo)) would've been a good machine. Of course this won't be performed today with the A350 being around, but had Airbus chosen the A330 over the A340 for NG-ifying I believe it could have sold well.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10699
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:05 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
Polot wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Keep in mind todays A333 is a far cry from the first batch of A333s. It may have been possible for Airbus to do it since they extended the A340. It would have been one hell of a machine and I'm sure Boeing is happy that Airbus didn't do it. That would have been a huge blow to the 777.


The 777's payload range would have blown it out of the water though. A stretch A333 would have probably hurt the A333 just as much.

Now it is the A359 that is preventing Airbus from doing it.

A simple stretch wouldn't have done much, but an A340-500/600 stretch (new wing, beefier MLG, new engines (not quite todays A330neo)) would've been a good machine. Of course this won't be performed today with the A350 being around, but had Airbus chosen the A330 over the A340 for NG-ifying I believe it could have sold well.


That is assuming that the A330NG could avoid the major pitfalls of the A340NG, namely that it was a porker.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:20 pm

The A330 unstretched has been selling well over the last decade, in what is often named the middle of the WB segment. A complicated, expensive large stretch IMO lacks ratio and is highly unlikely. A simple 4-5 m stretch is a different situation. Airbus would have to ask the current 100 operators.

Image

If it is a bad idea, is the more expensive 787-10 a good idea? It might sell better than the A330-800 :)
Last edited by keesje on Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7308
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:28 pm

keesje wrote:
The A330 unstretched has been selling well over the last decade, in what is often named the middle of the WB segment. A complicated, expensive large stretch IMO lacks ratio and is highly unlikely. A simple 4-5 m stretch is a different situation. Airbus would have to ask the current 100 operators.

Image

If it is a bad idea, is the more expensive 787-10 a good idea?

Is the big spike of A330 orders due to any kind of compensation for delays of the A350? As well as an unintended consequence for the 787 order cancellations (ie customers switching to the A330)?
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:45 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
The A330 unstretched has been selling well over the last decade, in what is often named the middle of the WB segment. A complicated, expensive large stretch IMO lacks ratio and is highly unlikely. A simple 4-5 m stretch is a different situation. Airbus would have to ask the current 100 operators.

Image

If it is a bad idea, is the more expensive 787-10 a good idea?

Is the big spike of A330 orders due to any kind of compensation for delays of the A350? As well as an unintended consequence for the 787 order cancellations (ie customers switching to the A330)?


No, the orders seem stable over the years, as shown. The higher sales a few years ago are probably for the new engine option.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
MON
Topic Author
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:54 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:45 pm

In the original post I was thinking of a simple low cost fuselage stretch, nothing more.

The A330 has moved so far along in capability since its introduction that I think the new range would put the aircraft in a very interesting part of the market without treading on the A359's toes. Currently most airports in Asia are full of A330s doing interasian flights of 2 to 7 hours, by stretching the airframe and doing little else surely the seat costs could be very tempting? Things like the center fuel tank would no longer be appropriate, like the orignal -300!

Most A330s are not flown in 9 across. From what I understand the 440 max configuration is only available with a certain type (larger/heavier) door that most A330 operators do not specify. I used to fly -200 versions with a two class 374 seat layout with this door type. The argument that a simple stretch would not have enough range is surely also a poor one, just look at what the A300s achieved sales wise with far less range than the current generation of wide bodies. Not every widebody requires the penalty of the complexity of being able to perform ULHR.

If you look at what most other manufactures have done over a comparable 30 year production run, it seems almost surprising the A330 has not been stretched yet?
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:04 am

You do have to wonder if, instead of doing the fairly close to stillborn 338, they had instead elected to do the existing 339 and a 33J (A330-1000) that was perhaps enough of a stretch to put in 5 more rows of economy seats, but targeted a 245T mtow. I tend to believe that they would have sold even more A330 platform frames than they have. Would it have been enough to recoup the additional development costs? I have no idea.

I can't see it hurting the A350 much at all as it would not be pushing near the same range for a similar capacity, and would be in a different band of purchase costs. Where it would have affected the market the most would have been the 787-10 and maybe the 777-300 a bit in high density, short range usage (though with less capacity). While being a less capable aircraft than the 359, it would have made a solid market impact with total lifetime ownership costs.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7086
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:44 am

MON wrote:
In the original post I was thinking of a simple low cost fuselage stretch, nothing more.

25 years ago Airbus did in fact explore that market - head on competition with 777-300 non-ER.

But what they offered had four engines - A340-400. It was a simple stretch of the A340-300 trading in range for capacity. It is in fact the reason why the A340NG wasn't named -400 and -500, but -500 and -600.

Fuselage would have been in between A340-500 and -600, and range would be reduced to around 5,000 nm.

At that time it was seen as a direct replacement of the many pretty old 747-100 in service. But the carriers didn't want their 741 replaced with an exact match. They wanted greater range - 744, A343 or MD-11. They had bought 741 because that was what they could get at that time. As soon as the longer range 742 was available, the 741 was dead.

If the A340-400 had been made, then maybe the 50 non-ER 773 sales would have been split with 25 to each.

Today A330 stretch is out of question. It is A350 territory.

If the A330 had been allowed to evolve into the "A350 Mk 1", as was the plan some 12-14 years ago, then it is almost sure that Airbus would have stretched the design way beyond A333 length into at least part of the territory now covered by A350XWB versions. But it didn't happen so.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5870
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 2:40 am

The A330 was stretched once from 330-300 to 330-300.

If you stretch the A330 in a major way, you must strengthen the wing and weelbase. Might as well start producing the A340 again.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:40 am

Mortyman wrote:
The A330 was stretched once from 330-300 to 330-300.

If you meant from 330-200 to 330-300, it's actually the other way around - the A330-200 was a shrink of the original A330-300.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:54 am

Mortyman wrote:
The A330 was stretched once from 330-300 to 330-300.

If you stretch the A330 in a major way, you must strengthen the wing and weelbase. Might as well start producing the A340 again.


Not you don't increase MTOW, or just a little.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:21 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
The A330 was stretched once from 330-300 to 330-300.

If you meant from 330-200 to 330-300, it's actually the other way around - the A330-200 was a shrink of the original A330-300.


Yup. The A332 was introduced when MTOW and engines and the gains from shortening lifted it over that "magic" rangelimit
that airlines had an eye on.
That move got quite the acceptance. for a couple of years ~75% of all A330 deliveries after introduction. :-)
Though now with better sfc and further increases in MTOW the A333 has also taken that range hurdle.
Swapover in ~2008. Same process you visible over the A320 types. ( replace A332 with A319, the A321 being a "Super A320")
Murphy is an optimist
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:24 am

The A330 was originally a stretch of the A300 called the A300 B9. Unbelievable how much success Airbus has had with this fuselage over the past 40 plus years.

Geoff
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:10 am

Geoff1947 wrote:
The A330 was originally a stretch of the A300 called the A300 B9. Unbelievable how much success Airbus has had with this fuselage over the past 40 plus years.


Well, Airbus seems to have jotted down a couple of A300 derivatives: B0 ... B11.
from this the A300 B* and A310 variants were created directly.
A310 with a brand new fully critical wing ( but the same wingbox? ).

The B9 ( larger twin ) and B11 ( longer range quad ) were taken as basic use case
and the TA9 and TA11 projects were started from that. cost and design optimizations lead
to those two being merged into a single airframe and wing design that could
use a twin engine arrangement for short to medium range and go as a quad for long range.

Continuity is in the 222" fuselage cross section and how the fuselage tapers. (cockpit section too?)
The wing, wingbox and belly fairing are a completely different animal.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:34 pm

keesje wrote:
The A330 unstretched has been selling well over the last decade, in what is often named the middle of the WB segment. A complicated, expensive large stretch IMO lacks ratio and is highly unlikely. A simple 4-5 m stretch is a different situation. Airbus would have to ask the current 100 operators.


If it is a bad idea, is the more expensive 787-10 a good idea? It might sell better than the A330-800 :)


You recently posted this statement which implies a simple stretch of a widebody is not a wise decision.

The 737-900ER, 767-300ER, 400ER, 777-300ER, -9 stretches didn't include a seriously payload-range penalty.

If the 787-10 remains as is, that would be a first. Sales don't support the wisdom of doing so.



An A330 stretch with only a 2 ton MTOW increase would probably have even less range than a 787-10. The 787-9 has a significant (probably 10 tons or so) payload advantage over the A330-900 as a starting point for the simple stretch. I don't see Airbus doing a simple stretch. Airbus seems to think the A350 range and payload is perfect and the 787-10 is range handicapped. Remember this picture from Airbus marketing in your stop the bleeding thread?


Image
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:36 pm

Airbus already has an A330 stretch, it's called the A350.

Stretching the A330 further would basically cannibalize the A350, and the A330 may lose its weight advantage for short sectors. Ain't gonna happen.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 2:53 pm

speedbored wrote:
Given that the A330 and A340 are essentially the same aircraft family, Airbus could relatively easily produce an A330 the same length as the A345 (68m) or A346 (75m).

I suspect that the reason Airbus has not gone ahead with either of those is because not enough, if any, airlines have shown sufficient interest in an aircraft with the capabilities that would result from such a stretch.


The A330-200/300 and the A340-200/300 were compatible and IMO the same frame with different engines. The A340-500/600 was a different bird, changed MLG, changed wings changed wing box, new engines and overweight. hardly something to repeat. If there could/would be a stretch of the A330-900 the reference would rather be the planed and not executed A340-400. A simple stretch.
We should see first how heavy the A330neo comes out, before there is talk about a stretch. If the A330neo comes out as light as I imagine, nearly the same OEW as the A330ceo, I can well imagine a stretch.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:06 pm

Airbus could easily do a simple stretch of the A330-900, creating an A330-1000. This new variant could be the same length as the A340-500, and since the A330 and the A340 share the same fuselage, the development and certification costs should be low. Such a stretch would be adding approximately 4 rows of economy class seats (32 seats), giving Airbus a direct 787-10 competitor.

The A330neo is not just updated engines, but also have 3,7 meters larger wingspan. A simple stretch, keeping the same MLG and same MTOW. The difference between the A330-900 and A340-500 is one frame between door 1 and door 2, one frame between door 2 and door 3, and two frames between door 3 and 4.

With no MTOW increase this simple stretch would reduce the range compared to the A330-900, maybe about 700 nm?

From Airbus technical documentation:
Image

mjoelnir wrote:
A340-500/600 was a different bird, changed MLG, changed wings changed wing box, new engines and overweight.


I'm not suggesting using any of the strengthened A340-500 components. The A340-500 was, after all, an ultra long haul aircraft with a significant higher MTOW. I'm suggesting using the A330-900 as it is, and only adding about 0.8 m between door 1 and 2, 0.8 m between door 2 and 3, and 1.6 m between door 3 and 4.
Last edited by reidar76 on Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9718
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:15 pm

Also, would there be enough clearance below the wing, in case a bigger engine than the ones mounted on the A345 and A346 would be mounted? An A330 stretch would be like an A345 but with just two engines that then need to produce around double the thrust per engine compared to the engines on the A345?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:39 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
The A330 unstretched has been selling well over the last decade, in what is often named the middle of the WB segment. A complicated, expensive large stretch IMO lacks ratio and is highly unlikely. A simple 4-5 m stretch is a different situation. Airbus would have to ask the current 100 operators.


If it is a bad idea, is the more expensive 787-10 a good idea? It might sell better than the A330-800 :)


You recently posted this statement which implies a simple stretch of a widebody is not a wise decision.

The 737-900ER, 767-300ER, 400ER, 777-300ER, -9 stretches didn't include a seriously payload-range penalty.

If the 787-10 remains as is, that would be a first. Sales don't support the wisdom of doing so.



An A330 stretch with only a 2 ton MTOW increase would probably have even less range than a 787-10. The 787-9 has a significant (probably 10 tons or so) payload advantage over the A330-900 as a starting point for the simple stretch. I don't see Airbus doing a simple stretch. Airbus seems to think the A350 range and payload is perfect and the 787-10 is range handicapped. Remember this picture from Airbus marketing in your stop the bleeding thread?


Image


Hi Newbiepilot, you have been dismissing a.net members (e.g me) as Airbus fanboys or even reveiving paychecks. Are you asking for post deletions too? Last week I tested if you yourself liked being associated with (not being) a BoeingFanboy. Well..

I try to keep away from questioning other members or putting them in corners. It would great if you do the same.

I think an A330 stretch range restriction could less of an issue, because a same size efficient 8000NM alternative exists if an airline wants to pay/ wait.

Btw the A350 dartboard you have been referencing for a year+ (?) was made by me in a minute in PP. Would you keep coming back on it if it was entirely incorrect?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:05 pm

reidar76 wrote:
Airbus could easily do a simple stretch of the A330-900, creating an A330-1000. This new variant could be the same length as the A340-500, and since the A330 and the A340 share the same fuselage, the development and certification costs should be low. Such a stretch would be adding approximately 4 rows of economy class seats (32 seats), giving Airbus a direct 787-10 competitor.

The A330neo is not just updated engines, but also have 3,7 meters larger wingspan. A simple stretch, keeping the same MLG and same MTOW. The difference between the A330-900 and A340-500 is one frame between door 1 and door 2, one frame between door 2 and door 3, and two frames between door 3 and 4.

With no MTOW increase this simple stretch would reduce the range compared to the A330-900, maybe about 700 nm?

From Airbus technical documentation:
Image

mjoelnir wrote:
A340-500/600 was a different bird, changed MLG, changed wings changed wing box, new engines and overweight.


I'm not suggesting using any of the strengthened A340-500 components. The A340-500 was, after all, an ultra long haul aircraft with a significant higher MTOW. I'm suggesting using the A330-900 as it is, and only adding about 0.8 m between door 1 and 2, 0.8 m between door 2 and 3, and 1.6 m between door 3 and 4.


I think a 4-5m / 30-40 seat rise would be required to make the product worthwhile. Compared to the A340, weight of the 4 engines and center gear no doubt influenced the centre of gravity and stretches before and after the wing. In general (my feeling) is stretches for existing configurations often pan out 3 lengths before versus 2 lengths after the wing/cg. For A330-1000 that would be ~3 m in front and ~2m at the back. (1 m =~ 2 frames)
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JMSVS
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:56 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:07 pm

It has already happened and it's called A350-900 XWB!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:21 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The 737-900ER, 767-300ER, 400ER, 777-300ER, -9 stretches didn't include a seriously payload-range penalty.

none of those were "simple" stretches.
If the 787-10 remains as is, that would be a first. Sales don't support the wisdom of doing so.

787-10 actually is a simple stretch. ... and does not have much in common with the complex stretches you enumerated before.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27218
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:20 pm

prebennorholm wrote:
If the A330 had been allowed to evolve into the "A350 Mk 1", as was the plan some 12-14 years ago, then it is almost sure that Airbus would have stretched the design way beyond A333 length into at least part of the territory now covered by A350XWB versions. But it didn't happen so.


Airbus was indeed studying an A350-1000 Mk. I to encroach on the 777-200ER market (for which a significant number of in-service frames were not really pushing the "Extended Range" part of the envelope).
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:25 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
The A330 unstretched has been selling well over the last decade, in what is often named the middle of the WB segment. A complicated, expensive large stretch IMO lacks ratio and is highly unlikely. A simple 4-5 m stretch is a different situation. Airbus would have to ask the current 100 operators.


If it is a bad idea, is the more expensive 787-10 a good idea? It might sell better than the A330-800 :)


You recently posted this statement which implies a simple stretch of a widebody is not a wise decision.

The 737-900ER, 767-300ER, 400ER, 777-300ER, -9 stretches didn't include a seriously payload-range penalty.

If the 787-10 remains as is, that would be a first. Sales don't support the wisdom of doing so.



An A330 stretch with only a 2 ton MTOW increase would probably have even less range than a 787-10. The 787-9 has a significant (probably 10 tons or so) payload advantage over the A330-900 as a starting point for the simple stretch. I don't see Airbus doing a simple stretch. Airbus seems to think the A350 range and payload is perfect and the 787-10 is range handicapped. Remember this picture from Airbus marketing in your stop the bleeding thread?


Image


Hi Newbiepilot, you have been dismissing a.net members (e.g me) as Airbus fanboys or even reveiving paychecks. Are you asking for post deletions too? Last week I tested if you yourself liked being associated with (not being) a BoeingFanboy. Well..

I try to keep away from questioning other members or putting them in corners. It would great if you do the same.

I think an A330 stretch range restriction could less of an issue, because a same size efficient 8000NM alternative exists if an airline wants to pay/ wait.

Btw the A350 dartboard you have been referencing for a year+ (?) was made by me in a minute in PP. Would you keep coming back on it if it was entirely incorrect?


I am not calling you names or even criticizing you. I just thought that the commentary that you said about simple stretches when discussing the 787-10 would also be applicable to this conversation. A stretched A330-900 would probably compete against a 787-10, but have less range. A stretched A330 would probably compete right against the A350 for orders at Airbus along with the 787-10 and have less range than either. If you feel like you are in a corner, you probably put yourself there with your own posts and not me.

Slide 16 and 17 are directly from Airbus in the linked presentation and state that "Large widebody aircraft need range flexibility to be successful"

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... D%5D=96272

Airbus themselves state that with the 787-10, history will repeat itself regarding the 777-200 and 777-300. With that type of marketing spin, Airbus launching an airplane with the same capacity and less range than the 787-10 seems a bit odd right now. It makes me think that Airbus is not seriously considering a stretch.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:33 pm

With the A350-1000 I don't see how a stretched A330 will fit in - maybe there's room but I don't see any...

As above comment states, it could go head-to-head with the 787-10 but end up losing in range.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:11 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I am not calling you names or even criticizing you. I just thought that the commentary that you said about simple stretches when discussing the 787-10 would also be applicable to this conversation. A stretched A330-900 would probably compete against a 787-10, but have less range. A stretched A330 would probably compete right against the A350 for orders at Airbus along with the 787-10 and have less range than either. If you feel like you are in a corner, you probably put yourself there with your own posts and not me.

Slide 16 and 17 are directly from Airbus in the linked presentation and state that "Large widebody aircraft need range flexibility to be successful"

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... D%5D=96272

Airbus themselves state that with the 787-10, history will repeat itself regarding the 777-200 and 777-300. With that type of marketing spin, Airbus launching an airplane with the same capacity and less range than the 787-10 seems a bit odd right now. It makes me think that Airbus is not seriously considering a stretch.


In that case you must feel Boeing should never have launched the 787-10, because it's hurting the same capacity 777-8 sales. In the case of a theoretical A330-1000 hurting A350-900 sales that's less likely, because the A350-900 has been a runaway success while the A330-300s sold equally well. Maybe payload-range, fleet commonality, price & availability are considerations after all, next to seatcount.. :scratchchin:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Boeing%20Airbus%20Widebody%20family%20keesje_zpsh0ffp31i.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27218
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330 fuselage stretch ever considered?

Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:42 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Airbus themselves state that with the 787-10, history will repeat itself regarding the 777-200 and 777-300. With that type of marketing spin, Airbus launching an airplane with the same capacity and less range than the 787-10 seems a bit odd right now. It makes me think that Airbus is not seriously considering a stretch.


In that case you must feel Boeing should never have launched the 787-10, because it's hurting the same capacity 777-8 sales.


Except the 777-8 has plenty of the "range flexibility to be successful" that Airbus says such a plane needs. :angel:

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