astuteman
Posts: 6944
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:53 am

Joost wrote:
astuteman wrote:
The A330NEO carries 139 000l fuel (vs 135 000l for the long-legged A350-900)


The regular A359 carries 141 000 litres. The A359 ULR carries 165 000.

Still, 251t would make the 339 a more attractive competitor against the 789 and opens quite some additional markets.


Just checked the ACAP.
It says 138 000l for the A359 (my 135k was a brain fart)

The A330-800 carries a lot of fuel for its size.

Rgds
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6558
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:04 am

I'd still expect a fuel consumption disadvantage next to the 789 on very long flights. This strikes me as being more about preventing existing A330 operators from defecting to the 787 when replacement time for their fleets rolls around or when they want to start longer routes.

The question in my mind is whether they can spend money to engineer a 251 t weight variant and still maintain the aggressive pricing they have now. The only two concrete advantages of the 330neo over the 787 are price and higher maximum payload. The price advantage is critical to continued sales.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:12 am

astuteman wrote:
It says 138 000l for the A359 (my 135k was a brain fart)

The A330-800 carries a lot of fuel for its size.


139,090 l / 109,185 kg
an A340 "gift"

789:
126,372 l / 101,456 kg

The interesting thing with a 251t MTOW would be a more direct type comparison A339 <> 789.
( ... nobody will do an MTOW increase just to pander to A.net dreams.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
RalXWB
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:56 am

People forget the massive sales figures of the CEO so any investment into the NEO is the right thing to do. The fake news that the -800 will never be built should be introduced in the "A-net hall of myths" by now...
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:00 am

scbriml wrote:
If this increase does get produced, it will make the A330neo quite the machine. I disagree that it will challenge the A350 however, because the A350 is also improving and getting higher weights.


The A350 is a moving target as well, its MTOW grew from 268t to 280t. That should leave enough room between the A330 and A350.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:04 am

I think Airbus would be better served by getting weight out of the A330 airframe rather than increasing MTOW.

The former would improve efficiency across all stage lengths, the latter only helps it fly further (at the kinds of mission lengths where the fuel burn differential to the 787 is fairly prohibitive anyway).
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:16 am

Amiga500 wrote:
I think Airbus would be better served by getting weight out of the A330 airframe rather than increasing MTOW.


I don't think there is much weight to save from a 25-years old airplane design. Some weight was removed when the A340 was shelved, and that's probably as far as it goes.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:27 am

KarelXWB wrote:
I don't think there is much weight to save from a 25-years old airplane design. Some weight was removed when the A340 was shelved, and that's probably as far as it goes.


There obviously is. Otherwise they would not be able to increase the MTOW!

At its most simplistic,for any loadpath on the aircraft, stress = force / area.

Airbus are currently increasing forces by increasing weights. They could reduce area and keep the weight constant and end up with the same stress levels they are using now.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:34 am

Amiga500 wrote:
There obviously is. Otherwise they would not be able to increase the MTOW!


Not every MTOW increase requires weight reductions though.

They could reduce area and keep the weight constant and end up with the same stress levels they are using now.


If it was that easy Airbus would have done it many years ago.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:47 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
There obviously is. Otherwise they would not be able to increase the MTOW!


Not every MTOW increase requires weight reductions though.


IMU his argument is :

If there is MTOW increase possible without OEW penalty
then there should also be room to decrease OEW while leaving MTOW untouched.

No idea.
Airbus seems to achieve results partly by twiddling the FBW and only enhancing structure
in select places.
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8912
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:58 am

Amiga500 wrote:
I think Airbus would be better served by getting weight out of the A330 airframe rather than increasing MTOW.

The former would improve efficiency across all stage lengths, the latter only helps it fly further (at the kinds of mission lengths where the fuel burn differential to the 787 is fairly prohibitive anyway).


If MTOW increase is coupled with MZFW increase, it can increase payload and that again increases efficiency.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:06 am

WIederling wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
There obviously is. Otherwise they would not be able to increase the MTOW!


Not every MTOW increase requires weight reductions though.


IMU his argument is :

If there is MTOW increase possible without OEW penalty
then there should also be room to decrease OEW while leaving MTOW untouched.

No idea.
Airbus seems to achieve results partly by twiddling the FBW and only enhancing structure
in select places.
My understanding with a lot of these things is that new models and modelling techniques allow you to push predicted loads in to the safety margin of a previous and less accurate model.

So a component may be able to withstand 1-1.5x its required loading according to the original model but because you need at least 1 (the limit load) then this is all you can get away with. When it is remodeled using newer and more accurate techniques then we find it can withstand 1.05-1.3x its required loading. If we find that all the components are like this then BINGO! we go up some, if however we fint at 90% are like this and 10% of the required are still at 1x limit at their low end then it may be worth redesigning those to be made a little beefier to get a weight increase, a little bit of redesign. If however you want to take weight out then you must redesign ALL the parts, this is expensive.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2364
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:19 am

The A330-NEO is fresh out from a weight saving program anyway. Airbus want to keep it broadly weight neutral over an equivalent CEO, despite the larger and heavier Trent 7000 engines.

Just a shame the new composite fan isn't yet available as that with a composite fan case would save a useful amount.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14140
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:23 am

The A330neo features different wingtip arrangement which maybe part of the reason for the MTOW increase, the new wingtip may reduce the wing bending moment.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:26 am

zeke wrote:
kmz wrote:
I think we should not underestimate the advantages an A350 or B787 bring to the customer concerning comfort. Higher cabin pressure, bigger windows and more space for the outboard PAX (curvature of side wall lining) is something passengers appreciate...


Its hard to believe sometimes, we keep being told that passenger's don't know what they are flying in, that they don't notice 1" of seat width difference, and then you mention these items that passengers will notice ? The A330 rarely gets above 6000 ft cabin altitude on long flights already.


mffoda wrote:
Has anyone told RR that they are going to need a new thrust bump certified in the next 18-24 mouths?? :white:


The stock standard A330 with Trent 700s can already do a 251 tonne takeoff, I just plugged in 30 deg, QNH 1013, nil wind and it comes back with 251.5 tonnes is the performance limit (with packs on). ISA conditions you are looking at 254 tonnes with packs on.


And, the T700 is a 72 klbs class engine where as the T7000 is derivative of a 78 klbs + engine....
And (bis) the wing of the NEO is better thant the CEO wing...
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:30 am

flipdewaf wrote:
If however you want to take weight out then you must redesign ALL the parts, this is expensive.


Not at all - you just downselect those that have the largest margins on them (and are of most significant initial weight).
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:30 am

Andre3K wrote:
Kind of off topic maybe but why does the consensus here think the A330Neo is a good idea/plane but say the 777-8/9 is fodder and garbage? They are both re-engines.


Neither are good idea/brilliant or garbage/fodder. A problem for the 777X is the extra size and weight compared to the competition though. If you have more seats you have to sell more tickets which reduces the routes that is viable for the design. If you have less seats to sell it opens up more routes. If you look at the sales of the A359/789/A333/789/A332/772 and compare it to the 77W/A35K/778/779 then you will see the sweet spot for the market seems to be around 250-300 seats and not 350-400 seats, where the 777X sits at right now.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:33 am

mjoelnir wrote:
If MTOW increase is coupled with MZFW increase, it can increase payload and that again increases efficiency.


Indeed, but your at the top right of the payload-range curve - which is already well behind the 787 on fuel burned anyway.

IMO, better to try and improve performance over both the shorter ranges (given that some absurdly large fraction of A330 flights are <2000 nm IIRC) and longer ranges.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11258
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:34 am

Andre3K wrote:
Kind of off topic maybe but why does the consensus here think the A330Neo is a good idea/plane but say the 777-8/9 is fodder and garbage? They are both re-engines.


One is a reengine that is weight competitive with with the current clean sheet competitior, the other offers a little more capacity for a lot more weight.

Also, the 779 any A351 space seems to suffer from 789 and A359 being just too good, i.e. little reason to buy bigger. Look how few people bite for 25% lower fuel burn of a A351 vs the 77W.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:41 am

Amiga500 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
If however you want to take weight out then you must redesign ALL the parts, this is expensive.


Not at all - you just downselect those that have the largest margins on them (and are of most significant initial weight).
But that is redesign whereas the increase in operating weights is a much simpler process of reanalyses of an already designed component or system of components.

Fred
Image
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:36 am

lightsaber wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
If true, this means that there is no way that the A330-800 ever gets built as this takes over virtually all of its missions. It would likely kill off the 787-8 Dreamliner as well.


Yes I see this killing off the A330-800.

I've read all the replies and this is the pair I agree with.


The most viable part would be an A338 freighter at 252t MTOW. Finally enough MTOW to really use the centerline tank in a freighter.

This would allow more flexibility for the A339.

So only because of freighters and tankers, I see the A338 continuing.

It also hurts the 788. After the 787 line rate increase, I was ready to write the obituary on the A330NEO. If Airbus invests in this, there will be sales. This takes the A339 out of range purgatory. Not necessarily for range, but payload at range. Same with the A330F.

Lightsaber


It does hurt the 787 having a more capable competitor, but I remember seeing fuel burn comparison charts between the A330neo and 787. Those charts had fuel burn relatively close at shorter ranges, but over longer flights, the A330neo was burning more fuel per seat as a percentage. Longer range flights may still favor the 787.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:37 am

flipdewaf wrote:
But that is redesign whereas the increase in operating weights is a much simpler process of reanalyses of an already designed component or system of components.
Fred


True, but you wouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. You'd limit the changes to reducing the thicknesses of flanges and/or webs where appropriate.

In fact, in many cases, you'd be able to drive the design backwards from your analytical/FE models. For example, change the PSHELL thickness properties in the nastran run deck and re-run as necessary. Or goalseek the thicknesses in your margin of safety hand calcs.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8912
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:08 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
If MTOW increase is coupled with MZFW increase, it can increase payload and that again increases efficiency.


Indeed, but your at the top right of the payload-range curve - which is already well behind the 787 on fuel burned anyway.

IMO, better to try and improve performance over both the shorter ranges (given that some absurdly large fraction of A330 flights are <2000 nm IIRC) and longer ranges.


Increased MZFW with a increase in MTOW, results in a max payload increase, increases the efficiency also on shorter routes. You take more stuff with you. It will lead for example to the A330ceo not being more effective on short routes.
Your argument fits only if the MTOW increase is done without corresponding increase of MZFW.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:28 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
If MTOW increase is coupled with MZFW increase, it can increase payload and that again increases efficiency.


Indeed, but your at the top right of the payload-range curve - which is already well behind the 787 on fuel burned anyway.

How do I have to interpret that ? :-)

IMO, better to try and improve performance over both the shorter ranges (given that some absurdly large fraction of A330 flights are <2000 nm IIRC) and longer ranges.


The thing with the A330 is that airlines seem to be very happy with the "for the range it is used for overweight" frame.
Some 777 misuse numbers would be of interest to see if this is A330 specific or "just how things are run" .
Murphy is an optimist
 
sf260
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
If MTOW increase is coupled with MZFW increase, it can increase payload and that again increases efficiency.


Indeed, but your at the top right of the payload-range curve - which is already well behind the 787 on fuel burned anyway.

How do I have to interpret that ? :-)

I think he tries to say that, regardless of further [A330neo] MZFW/MTOW increases, the 787 will be more efficient the further you fly with max payload.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14140
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:16 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Increased MZFW with a increase in MTOW, results in a max payload increase, increases the efficiency also on shorter routes. You take more stuff with you. It will lead for example to the A330ceo not being more effective on short routes.
Your argument fits only if the MTOW increase is done without corresponding increase of MZFW.


I think you have hit the nail on the head there, I guess they will increase payload uplift 5-10 tonnes out of this making the A330 about to lift even more payload over sub 10 hr flights. I dont think the aim is for it to compete on longer range, it the short to medium haul improvement. Around Asia and TATL would be fine with such a machine.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
airbazar
Posts: 9819
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:24 pm

kmz wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
scbriml wrote:
If this increase does get produced, it will make the A330neo quite the machine. I disagree that it will challenge the A350 however, because the A350 is also improving and getting higher weights.:


I could see a more capable A330neo taking away A350 orders. The A350 is already a long range machine and may have more range than needed by many airlines. For example I am struggling to think of any routes that a European airline would operate that is outside the range of the A330-900 other than Chile/Argentina.


I think we should not underestimate the advantages an A350 or B787 bring to the customer concerning comfort. Higher cabin pressure, bigger windows and more space for the outboard PAX (curvature of side wall lining) is something passengers appreciate...

The A350 should also be noticeably more fuel efficient at anything over 10 hours. My amateur guess is that airlines that operate most routes at over 10 hours will prefer the A350 vs. those airlines that operate most routes closer to the "medium haul" category. Say LH vs TP for example. TP only has 2 routes over 10 hours: MPM ~10:15 and POA ~11:00. LH however has many. Even a basic TATL such as MUC-CLT can last over 10 hours.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:32 pm

zeke wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Increased MZFW with a increase in MTOW, results in a max payload increase, increases the efficiency also on shorter routes. You take more stuff with you. It will lead for example to the A330ceo not being more effective on short routes.
Your argument fits only if the MTOW increase is done without corresponding increase of MZFW.


I think you have hit the nail on the head there, I guess they will increase payload uplift 5-10 tonnes out of this making the A330 about to lift even more payload over sub 10 hr flights. I dont think the aim is for it to compete on longer range, it the short to medium haul improvement. Around Asia and TATL would be fine with such a machine.


Sometimes when MTOW goes up, MZFW actually goes down or MLW goes down. The numbers don't always move in the way that would be ideal, but it all is related to stresses on the air frame. That might be why this is a very significant project.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3316
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:46 pm

This smells fake. "Significant increase in resources" so we need to hire an intern....???? Is the wing engineering department of Airbus made of what? Three people?

Now assume true. The A350 was specified as the 77E killer. Now the A339 is going to be as capable as the 77E and we should expect a weight bump for the A339 is not going to eat into the sales of the A350.... !!?? Not logical. Every time Airbus enhances the A339, fewer airlines need the A350.

Even if Airbus keeps enhancing the A350, its incremental capability may not be useful to a number of operators, so the potential customer base shrinks.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:41 pm

seabosdca wrote:
I'd still expect a fuel consumption disadvantage next to the 789 on very long flights. This strikes me as being more about preventing existing A330 operators from defecting to the 787 when replacement time for their fleets rolls around or when they want to start longer routes.

The question in my mind is whether they can spend money to engineer a 251 t weight variant and still maintain the aggressive pricing they have now. The only two concrete advantages of the 330neo over the 787 are price and higher maximum payload. The price advantage is critical to continued sales.



Interesting statement. IMO if they both follow the same laws regarding development costs, the neo should have a large pricing advantage over the 787. If not, maybe Airbus can sue Boeing for dumping. :stirthepot:
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11258
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:02 pm

seabosdca wrote:
I'd still expect a fuel consumption disadvantage next to the 789 on very long flights. This strikes me as being more about preventing existing A330 operators from defecting to the 787 when replacement time for their fleets rolls around or when they want to start longer routes..


Well, or just for airlines that mostly fly them around the A339s sweet spot, but have a few destinations that need the range. Having a frame that does those x% of missions with a slight cost disadvantage is much better than having a small additional fleet to serve those, because the A339 didn´t have the legs. For Airbus that is also much better than losing a whole deal to the Boeing 787, just because the customer isn´t big enough for 2 subfleets, but needs to server those, maybe just one or two, destinations that the 242t A339 can´t make.

Not sure if there is an airline that fits the bill out there, but having A333s and 77Es makes A339 and 787 natural competitors for fleet replacement, better to have an A339 version that can do those 77E missions.

If this turns out to be real, i am pretty sure that a specific airline customer will turn out to be responsible for the upgrade. Airbus wouldn´t be doing it just because they can.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1274
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:47 pm

My speculation: Delta ordering paper de-rated A338's to replace the 50 odd 767's that will be coming up on retirement in the next 7 years, or perhaps even with this many giving Airbus the incentive to produce a 'Lite' version optimized for 4000 miles. I had calculated that Delta is committed to paying about 87MM for each A339 (same price as the last 10 A333IGW). If they can get an A338 for under 75million that is a heck of a aircraft for 230-240 seats over 4000 mile routes, while still carrying a massive amount of cargo, including asparagus from Peru (and fish from Iceland :D )
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8912
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:51 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
zeke wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Increased MZFW with a increase in MTOW, results in a max payload increase, increases the efficiency also on shorter routes. You take more stuff with you. It will lead for example to the A330ceo not being more effective on short routes.
Your argument fits only if the MTOW increase is done without corresponding increase of MZFW.


I think you have hit the nail on the head there, I guess they will increase payload uplift 5-10 tonnes out of this making the A330 about to lift even more payload over sub 10 hr flights. I dont think the aim is for it to compete on longer range, it the short to medium haul improvement. Around Asia and TATL would be fine with such a machine.


Sometimes when MTOW goes up, MZFW actually goes down or MLW goes down. The numbers don't always move in the way that would be ideal, but it all is related to stresses on the air frame. That might be why this is a very significant project.


As it is you get the 242 t version of the A330-900 also with the highest MZFW of 181 t as a variable MZFW from 177 to 181 t. So you can either go full payload on shorter distances or long distances with slightly reduced payload. The A330-900 offers a higher MZFW than the A330-300, compensating I assume for the higher OEW or MEW compared to the A330-300.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1416
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:59 pm

If true, I think this kills any potential freighter / tanker development from the A 350 frame. (A potential F version was included in the original XWB plan).

The development cost for producing an F / MRTT from this enhanced A330neo must be hugely lower than from the A350, as most of the work is derivable from the existing A330 ceo F / MRTT.

There is a generally accepted assumption that an A330 is cheaper to produce than an A350.

Any passenger - friendly features advantaging the A350 are not relevant to an F / MRTT.

So, all told, there will be no need for an A350F / MRTT.
 
ap305
Topic Author
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:09 pm

This is clearly targeted at a customer- Air Asia. They needed the a330neo to do KUL-LHR and back.... This variant will have the legs for that mission.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:15 pm

coronado wrote:
My speculation: Delta ordering paper de-rated A338's to replace the 50 odd 767's that will be coming up on retirement in the next 7 years, or perhaps even with this many giving Airbus the incentive to produce a 'Lite' version optimized for 4000 miles. I had calculated that Delta is committed to paying about 87MM for each A339 (same price as the last 10 A333IGW). If they can get an A338 for under 75million that is a heck of a aircraft for 230-240 seats over 4000 mile routes, while still carrying a massive amount of cargo, including asparagus from Peru (and fish from Iceland :D )


75 Million is quite a bit lower than A330-200 prices. I don't see Airbus going that low.

Also, I don't see why anyone would want to the A330-800, especially Delta. The fuel burn between the A330-200 and A330-300 are very close. It is expected that fuel burn between the A330-900 and 800 will also be very close. When operating costs are nearly identical and with higher weight A330-900s having plenty of range for transpacific flying, the A330-800 is kind of pointless. Who wouldn't want more seats for 1-2% marginal operating cost differences?
 
Theseus
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:51 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
So, all told, there will be no need for an A350F / MRTT.


I would add "for now". In 10 or 15 years, this might come. Just like Airbus kept producing A300-600F for quite some time after the A330/A340 entered in production.

And I think this is fine: right now, A350 and B787 are super efficient aircraft, in particular for very long haul flights, that are (especially the A350) in short supply for passenger operations (see the production rate of the 787 / the backlog of both). So it makes more sense that the frames produced in the next five years go to high utilization roles as passenger aircraft than lower utilization as cargo or MRTT aircraft... especially if other planes like A330 or B777 can fill the cargo role pretty well.
 
gloom
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:21 pm

zeke wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Increased MZFW with a increase in MTOW, results in a max payload increase, increases the efficiency also on shorter routes. You take more stuff with you. It will lead for example to the A330ceo not being more effective on short routes.
Your argument fits only if the MTOW increase is done without corresponding increase of MZFW.


I think you have hit the nail on the head there, I guess they will increase payload uplift 5-10 tonnes out of this making the A330 about to lift even more payload over sub 10 hr flights. I dont think the aim is for it to compete on longer range, it the short to medium haul improvement. Around Asia and TATL would be fine with such a machine.


I guess you both are right. But I would rephrase it. It's a move to try and take some of the market which was predicted as "787-10 domain". 350 is too much of a machine in terms of structure and fuel, and 330neo was not really there to match 787-10 payload before. MTOW bump should give Airbus a chance to fill in the high-payload, short-to-medium range market.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9703
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:31 pm

gloom wrote:
I guess you both are right. But I would rephrase it. It's a move to try and take some of the market which was predicted as "787-10 domain". 350 is too much of a machine in terms of structure and fuel, and 330neo was not really there to match 787-10 payload before. MTOW bump should give Airbus a chance to fill in the high-payload, short-to-medium range market.

The A339's issue against the 787-10 is its size, not payload. The A339 will be lifting more but the 787-10 will still be holding more pax in comparable layouts. I question how big this "high payload, short-to-medium range market" actually is. Are most 242t A333 operators really leaving a lot of money behind on these short to medium routes because they run out of available weight? Or are they running out of space first? IMHO the bump is all about giving the A339 some extra range to make it a stronger, more attractive competitor against the 789.
 
Joost
Posts: 1877
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:10 pm

Joost wrote:
The regular A359 carries 141 000 litres. The A359 ULR carries 165 000.


astuteman wrote:
Just checked the ACAP.It says 138 000l for the A359 (my 135k was a brain fart)
The A330-800 carries a lot of fuel for its size.


Interesting, apparantly even Airbus has different numbers floating around. 141 000 comes from the press release of the announcement of the ULR, highlighting the differences.
http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2015/10/airbus-launches-new-ultra-long-range-version-of-the-a350-900.html

astuteman wrote:
Just checked the ACAP.
The A330-800 carries a lot of fuel for its size.


Defenitely, a result of using the center tank originally designed for the more fuel-hungry A340-300. The 338, and also the 332, is one of the few airplanes (without aux tanks) that, in the payload/range chart, doesn't have the 3rd 'stage' where lowering total weight gives you more fuel: the 332 and 338 have so much fuel capacity that they can't even use it all while still carrying payload.
 
gloom
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:56 pm

Polot wrote:
I question how big this "high payload, short-to-medium range market" actually is. Are most 242t A333 operators really leaving a lot of money behind on these short to medium routes because they run out of available weight? Or are they running out of space first?


If we assume 187t as MLAW and 242t MTOW, plus approx 7-8t as standard reserve, then the plane plus payload would go to around 180tons max on landing, plus Wiki says 175t MZFW, I assume this is about right. Based on this, we might assume around 70t is fuel-only, which should equal to more than 10hrs still air, probably 4500nm on maxed payload.

Now, if we get a bump to 251t, without MZFW/MLAW, then it's only range raised. However, since Neo is heavier frame than Ceo, then simple MTOW bump without MZFW/MLAW change makes Neo worse than ceo. I simply don't believe that, this doesn't sell. So, I'd say we'll get MZFW/MLAW bump as well, maybe not as large as MTOW. But it's all speculative, unless Airbus releases specs to public.

Cheers,
Adam
 
trex8
Posts: 5349
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:11 pm

Aviaponcho wrote:
zeke wrote:
kmz wrote:
I think we should not underestimate the advantages an A350 or B787 bring to the customer concerning comfort. Higher cabin pressure, bigger windows and more space for the outboard PAX (curvature of side wall lining) is something passengers appreciate...


Its hard to believe sometimes, we keep being told that passenger's don't know what they are flying in, that they don't notice 1" of seat width difference, and then you mention these items that passengers will notice ? The A330 rarely gets above 6000 ft cabin altitude on long flights already.


mffoda wrote:
Has anyone told RR that they are going to need a new thrust bump certified in the next 18-24 mouths?? :white:


The stock standard A330 with Trent 700s can already do a 251 tonne takeoff, I just plugged in 30 deg, QNH 1013, nil wind and it comes back with 251.5 tonnes is the performance limit (with packs on). ISA conditions you are looking at 254 tonnes with packs on.


And, the T700 is a 72 klbs class engine where as the T7000 is derivative of a 78 klbs + engine....
And (bis) the wing of the NEO is better thant the CEO wing...

From 230t to 242t Airbus didn't need to increase thrust. If the Trent 7000 has 6k more than the 700 it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume 242 to 254 can use the same thrust.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:57 pm

trex8 wrote:
Aviaponcho wrote:
zeke wrote:

Its hard to believe sometimes, we keep being told that passenger's don't know what they are flying in, that they don't notice 1" of seat width difference, and then you mention these items that passengers will notice ? The A330 rarely gets above 6000 ft cabin altitude on long flights already.




The stock standard A330 with Trent 700s can already do a 251 tonne takeoff, I just plugged in 30 deg, QNH 1013, nil wind and it comes back with 251.5 tonnes is the performance limit (with packs on). ISA conditions you are looking at 254 tonnes with packs on.


And, the T700 is a 72 klbs class engine where as the T7000 is derivative of a 78 klbs + engine....
And (bis) the wing of the NEO is better thant the CEO wing...

From 230t to 242t Airbus didn't need to increase thrust. If the Trent 7000 has 6k more than the 700 it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume 242 to 254 can use the same thrust.

T7000 basically is a T1000-TEN and the A330 has bigger and wing greater wingspan and area than the 787 so I would think it would be fine.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:34 pm

RalXWB wrote:
People forget the massive sales figures of the CEO so any investment into the NEO is the right thing to do.

I think the A330neo is the right thing to do, but the logic is the kind that led Boeing to do the 747-8...

There still is some risk in A330neo having a trajectory more like 747-8 than A320neo or 737NG or 737MAX...

Time will tell if it ends up with "massive sales figures" like its older sibling or not.

tommy1808 wrote:
Andre3K wrote:
Kind of off topic maybe but why does the consensus here think the A330Neo is a good idea/plane but say the 777-8/9 is fodder and garbage? They are both re-engines.

One is a reengine that is weight competitive with the current clean sheet competitor, the other offers a little more capacity for a lot more weight.

The 779 offers the ability to do 10x seating so it's more than a little more capacity than A350.

The 779 weighs more for sure, but it's not clear that weight tell the whole story. Some of the extra weight is going into extra long wings to add performance. Some of the extra weight is going into the engines because the fans are bigger (and lord knows it's a.net wisdom that the biggest fan wins). If weight was the penultimate metric then it's hard to see why Boeing wouldn't be addressing that.

Time will tell if Boeing made the right trade-offs or not.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ZEDZAG
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think the A330neo is the right thing to do, but the logic is the kind that led Boeing to do the 747-8...

There still is some risk in A330neo having a trajectory more like 747-8 than A320neo or 737NG or 737MAX...



You cannot compare 330NEO to 748.
Last 744 pax was delivered in 2005, the same year boeing announced 748, as 380 made its FF as 77W EISd along with 346 a year earlier. 7 years later boeing deliverd first 748i. Last 744 deliverd of the line was in 2009 with some deliveris of NTUs in 2010, while first 748f was delivered late 2011.There was a gap bettwen the two. The logic from boeing when launchin was strong freighter sales, not pax

NEO will/is be produced alongside CEO, and its primariy usage is pax models not freighters, as freighter NEO is not launched/yet. You could say the same about 777x then, but 777x is a different story as it is more complexd redesign then NEO, and more expensive one. NEO is described as Low risk/Low cost investment. What we dont know, is, what will operators select for replacemet of CEOs, late build 767, as we dont know what will replace 77W and 380, 777-9 or 3510 or a 380NEO....
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1368
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:50 am

Amiga500 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
But that is redesign whereas the increase in operating weights is a much simpler process of reanalyses of an already designed component or system of components.
Fred


True, but you wouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. You'd limit the changes to reducing the thicknesses of flanges and/or webs where appropriate.

In fact, in many cases, you'd be able to drive the design backwards from your analytical/FE models. For example, change the PSHELL thickness properties in the nastran run deck and re-run as necessary. Or goalseek the thicknesses in your margin of safety hand calcs.


I practice, I don't think there are many 25 year old designs where people have been able to remove significant weight. If it were a reasonable thing to do people would be doing it. Can you think of any similar situation where people have pulled weight from a mature design? Offer us an example of where this has worked in the past?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:51 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I practice,


Very good. Your not unique.

kitplane01 wrote:
Can you think of any similar situation where people have pulled weight from a mature design? Offer us an example of where this has worked in the past?


Airbus are always looking on weight savings. About 10 years ago, I was working on fuel systems R&T for single aisles, looking at different pumps, galleries and venting (flame arrestors). Some of it went for evaluation onto production aircraft, others got shelved for the next gen single aisle and yet more got parked as not suitable. There is no real song and dance about it as its seen more as routine work.

Here is one of the few instances where it made headlines - and as far as I know its now on in-service aircraft:

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/ ... nting.html

30kg in one simple sub-assembly.

They saved about 50kg on the A320 by updating the cockpit from CRT to LCD.

Its not tonnes, unless there was a serious focus and a wrapping up of multiple improvements, it never would be. Also, given the focus largely seems to be on improving range, then they often aren't looking to take structural weight out, but rather load it more.


Also, most 25 year old aircraft designs are nearing EOL, not getting major revamps and money spent on them!
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:19 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I practice,


Very good. Your not unique.

kitplane01 wrote:
Can you think of any similar situation where people have pulled weight from a mature design? Offer us an example of where this has worked in the past?


Airbus are always looking on weight savings. About 10 years ago, I was working on fuel systems R&T for single aisles, looking at different pumps, galleries and venting (flame arrestors). Some of it went for evaluation onto production aircraft, others got shelved for the next gen single aisle and yet more got parked as not suitable. There is no real song and dance about it as its seen more as routine work.

Here is one of the few instances where it made headlines - and as far as I know its now on in-service aircraft:

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/ ... nting.html

30kg in one simple sub-assembly.

They saved about 50kg on the A320 by updating the cockpit from CRT to LCD.

Its not tonnes, unless there was a serious focus and a wrapping up of multiple improvements, it never would be. Also, given the focus largely seems to be on improving range, then they often aren't looking to take structural weight out, but rather load it more.


Also, most 25 year old aircraft designs are nearing EOL, not getting major revamps and money spent on them!


Airbus does a good job of continuous improvement. Both manufacturers are constantly looking for ways to reduce weight. Upgrading from CRTs to LCDs is a good example. There are also secondary structural or systems components where 3D printing can pull weight out. Interior component weights also tend to go down with the new interior designs.

Now this probably doesn't mean the airplane is getting lighter. While weight savings efforts are going on, it is almost impossible for weight not to continuously creep up. As an airframe ages there are structural discoveries where cracking or other issues are found. This usually results in service bulletin retrofits and redesigns and weight almost always goes up when this happens. SFAR 88 and all of its bonding and grounding requirements have added a lot of weight over the years.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1368
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:49 am

Amiga500 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I practice,


Very good. Your not unique.

kitplane01 wrote:
Can you think of any similar situation where people have pulled weight from a mature design? Offer us an example of where this has worked in the past?


Airbus are always looking on weight savings. About 10 years ago, I was working on fuel systems R&T for single aisles, looking at different pumps, galleries and venting (flame arrestors). Some of it went for evaluation onto production aircraft, others got shelved for the next gen single aisle and yet more got parked as not suitable. There is no real song and dance about it as its seen more as routine work.

Here is one of the few instances where it made headlines - and as far as I know its now on in-service aircraft:

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/ ... nting.html

30kg in one simple sub-assembly.

They saved about 50kg on the A320 by updating the cockpit from CRT to LCD.

Its not tonnes, unless there was a serious focus and a wrapping up of multiple improvements, it never would be. Also, given the focus largely seems to be on improving range, then they often aren't looking to take structural weight out, but rather load it more.


Also, most 25 year old aircraft designs are nearing EOL, not getting major revamps and money spent on them!


I rather thought that the thought was to save a significant amount of weight. Enough to lure buyers from the 787, which seems like many tons or tens of tons. That's what I thought was very difficult, and has not happened in the past.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:45 am

Leeham on the subject:

Airbus is working on a 7,000nm A330-900

Airbus is working on increasing the range of the larger variant of the A330neo to 7,000nm. The present version, A330-900, flies 287 passengers 6,550nm, according to Airbus.

The range increase, which comes about from a take-off weight increase, is designed to make the A330-900 more of a competitor to the best-selling Boeing 787-9.

But the Airbus 7,000nm is not comparable to the 787-9’s 7,635nm with 290 passengers. The companies disagree on most principles on how to measure an airliner’s maximum range.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.

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