Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ap305
Topic Author
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:10 am

The a330-941 has been certified by EASA

http://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default ... 9.2018.pdf
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
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10352
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:20 pm

-25% fuel burn in comparison to ??????
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2473
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:24 pm

par13del wrote:
-25% fuel burn in comparison to ??????


The A330-300?
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:24 pm

par13del wrote:
-25% fuel burn in comparison to ??????


The A333. See the range box above.

Which airline is getting it first?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3652
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:34 pm

-25% fuel burn and + 400nm range. Something doesn't add up to me. I don't think that the -25% fuel is vs the A333. It must be vs the 767 or maybe even the A300 or something. and the +400nm seems too low also. Overall that seems like a weird marketing slide.

Fred

Edit: well done on the certification, I imagine there was ever much doubt.
Image
 
User avatar
terrificturk
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:44 pm

VS11 wrote:
par13del wrote:
-25% fuel burn in comparison to ??????


The A333. See the range box above.

Which airline is getting it first?



TAP Air Portugal.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1773
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:45 pm

VS11 wrote:
par13del wrote:
-25% fuel burn in comparison to ??????


Which airline is getting it first?


TAP
@DadCelo
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20278
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:48 pm

Congrats to Airbus, RR, and soon TAP.

That is a weird marketing slide as it doesn't burn 25% less than an A333. If it did that, sales would be better and range another 400nm.

This is a good TATL hauler.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:05 pm

Probably there is a typo on the slide. Regarding Airbus website we have the following data:

A332

Range: 7250 nm
Typical Seating: 247

A333

Range: 6350 nm
Typical Seating: 277

A339

Range: 7200 nm
Typical Seating: 287
 
B8887
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:08 pm

Operating temperatures on ground, -55C to +55C, rather amazing...

I've checked other types certificates (777) and I can't seem to find the operating temps there.

Anyone has them at hand?

Thanks.

Regards..

B8887
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2574
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:12 pm

bgm wrote:
par13del wrote:
-25% fuel burn in comparison to ??????


The A330-300?


highly unlikely.

More like -3.0% or something probably... :white:
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10717
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:14 pm

Airbus now promotes the A330neo as having a 25% fuel burn per seat improvement over “previous generation aircraft, such as the 767 and 777”. It is purposely vague but definitely not against the A333.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0neo-E.pdf
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:21 pm

If it has 850nm better range than the A333, that is pretty good.
 
rbrunner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:13 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:11 pm

It's supposed to be very good. The cabin is apparently as quiet as the 789, as they share the same engine (basically). Let us wait until it carries passengers around the globe and airlines make a statement as far as the performance is concerned.
 
United857
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:37 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:29 am

The range quotes on Airbus' website need to be taken with a grain of salt for the first couple of A330neo's produced because they are for the 251 tonne variant entering service sometime in 2020. The ones delivered before then are still of the 242t variant, the same MTOW as the newest A332/A333 and will not have such a large range increase.
A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A346 A388 B712 B733 B737 B738 B739 B744 B748 B752 B764 B772 B77L B77W B788 B789 CRJ2 E145 E75S E75L E190 MD88 MD90
AA AC B6 CA CX CZ DL EK FM HU JL KA LH LX MU NH NK TK UA US
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:41 am

Awesome news. TAP has been waiting a year for this date. Looking forward to seeing the new plane enter their fleet
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:33 am

United857 wrote:
The range quotes on Airbus' website need to be taken with a grain of salt for the first couple of A330neo's produced because they are for the 251 tonne variant entering service sometime in 2020. The ones delivered before then are still of the 242t variant, the same MTOW as the newest A332/A333 and will not have such a large range increase.


ja, that ominous grain of salt.

From the backgrounder:
The A330-800 at 251t can fly up to 8,150nm (15,094km) km
and the A330-900 up to 7,200nm (13,334km)
with an entry into service in 2020
.

From Airbus website:
-800 range of 7,500 nautical miles, the A330-800neo typically will seat 257 passengers in three classes of service
-900 range of 7,200 @ 287 pax

bit of a mix there -900 values are both apparently for the 242/5 t MTOW version?
Murphy is an optimist
 
United857
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:37 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:18 pm

bit of a mix there -900 values are both apparently for the 242/5 t MTOW version?


If my memory is correct, the range quotes before the 251t variants were announced earlier this year was somewhere around 7500nm for the A338 and 6500nm for the A339. Unfortunately Airbus removed them after soon after the 251t was announced and are nowhere to be found.
A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A346 A388 B712 B733 B737 B738 B739 B744 B748 B752 B764 B772 B77L B77W B788 B789 CRJ2 E145 E75S E75L E190 MD88 MD90
AA AC B6 CA CX CZ DL EK FM HU JL KA LH LX MU NH NK TK UA US
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:56 pm

Wasn't the original spec -10% block fuel vis a vis the 330 ceo?

I'm guessing the -25% number is burn per seat versus 767-300ER.
 
masi1157
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:56 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:31 pm

rbrunner wrote:
The cabin is apparently as quiet as the 789, as they share the same engine (basically).

There are many many more things driving interior noise than just the basic type of engine. And even the (rather small) noise contribution from the engines need not be the same. Are the nacelles and acoustic treatment the same? Are they operated at the same power settings? Are the engines at the same distance from the fuselage? And most importantly: Is the noise transmission through aircraft skin, insulation and interior lining the same? On top of all that you have boundary layer noise, which will be different, and all those systems like ECS and air distribution and all that. During cruise they are noisier in parts of the cabin than engine noise, even on A330ceo, and more so on A330neo and B787.


Gruß, masi1157
517 different segments on 101 airlines to 212 airports in 55 countries
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:43 pm

United857 wrote:
bit of a mix there -900 values are both apparently for the 242/5 t MTOW version?


If my memory is correct, the range quotes before the 251t variants were announced earlier this year was somewhere around 7500nm for the A338 and 6500nm for the A339. Unfortunately Airbus removed them after soon after the 251t was announced and are nowhere to be found.


Right, so here is where we start to say that is hardly better than the 6350nm available with 242t A333 CEO!! But then people said new engines are heavier, and new 25\42T fuel load is actually less than on A333 CEO. So the percentage improvement is really a bit fuzzy, but maybe not even 10%. Still a very big number, but A333 was efficient already.
 
United857
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:37 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:08 pm

Well looking at the operating empty weight of the A332/A333 vs. A338/A339, the A338 is 11.4t heavier than the A332 and the A339 is 7.6t heavier than the A333. Assuming the same payload and cabin configuration, at a MTOW of 242t the A338 flies about 300nm further on 11.4t less fuel and the A330 about 200nm further on 7.6t less fuel. If someone can figure out how much total fuel would be used on such flights for the A332/A333, simply take 11.4 or 7.6 and divide by the total fuel consumed and you have the % improvement in fuel efficiency.
A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A346 A388 B712 B733 B737 B738 B739 B744 B748 B752 B764 B772 B77L B77W B788 B789 CRJ2 E145 E75S E75L E190 MD88 MD90
AA AC B6 CA CX CZ DL EK FM HU JL KA LH LX MU NH NK TK UA US
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:16 pm

United857 wrote:
Unfortunately Airbus removed them after soon after the 251t was announced and are nowhere to be found.


today:
MTOW 251 t (553,000 lb)
Range 8,150nmi / 15,094km 7,200nmi / 13,334km
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ifications

Dec. 2017
MTOW 242 t (534,000 lb)
Range 7,500 nmi (13,890 km)[d] 6,550 nmi (12,130 km)[e]
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ifications

Wikipedia history function is rather useful.
( especially against those busybodies that try to change history :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10717
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:22 pm

Flighty wrote:
United857 wrote:
bit of a mix there -900 values are both apparently for the 242/5 t MTOW version?


If my memory is correct, the range quotes before the 251t variants were announced earlier this year was somewhere around 7500nm for the A338 and 6500nm for the A339. Unfortunately Airbus removed them after soon after the 251t was announced and are nowhere to be found.


Right, so here is where we start to say that is hardly better than the 6350nm available with 242t A333 CEO!! But then people said new engines are heavier, and new 25\42T fuel load is actually less than on A333 CEO. So the percentage improvement is really a bit fuzzy, but maybe not even 10%. Still a very big number, but A333 was efficient already.

Not helping matters on the perception front is that Airbus has generally been comparing the Neo to older (re: not the 242t) variants of the Ceo. Which is fair, since those are the A330s that will be replaced, but it undersells the capability of a brand new A330ceo versus the A330neo when it comes to range.
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:49 pm

rbrunner wrote:
It's supposed to be very good. The cabin is apparently as quiet as the 789, as they share the same engine (basically). Let us wait until it carries passengers around the globe and airlines make a statement as far as the performance is concerned.



it doesnt have the chevrons, so id imagine its louder
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:11 pm

251t will be at 2021, isnt it?
 
masi1157
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:56 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:25 pm

musman9853 wrote:
it doesnt have the chevrons, so id imagine its louder

In the cabin during cruise? No! They have much less effect on cabin noise than all the other things I mentioned earlier.


Gruß, masi1157
517 different segments on 101 airlines to 212 airports in 55 countries
 
Etheereal
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:44 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:49 pm

So airbus is comparing it to "older gen" 777s? This gonna be good :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
 
masi1157
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:56 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:04 pm

Why that?
517 different segments on 101 airlines to 212 airports in 55 countries
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:13 pm

masi1157 wrote:
musman9853 wrote:
it doesnt have the chevrons, so id imagine its louder

In the cabin during cruise? No! They have much less effect on cabin noise than all the other things I mentioned earlier.


Gruß, masi1157



interesting. don't the chevrons always reduce engine noise at all altitudes and speeds?
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2992
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:40 pm

musman9853 wrote:
masi1157 wrote:
musman9853 wrote:
it doesnt have the chevrons, so id imagine its louder

In the cabin during cruise? No! They have much less effect on cabin noise than all the other things I mentioned earlier.


Gruß, masi1157



interesting. don't the chevrons always reduce engine noise at all altitudes and speeds?


I’m sure it does but it’s more so to lower outside noise. Also note that Boeing removed them from the 777X.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:46 pm

To clarify some of the details.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ch-452235/


The last paragraph is very interesting..... :spin: .....

Quote:
"It is set to start test-flying the smaller A330neo variant, the A330-800, within the next few weeks. Airbus is also developing a higher-weight version of both models, taking the maximum take-off weight to 251t and extending the A330-900’s range to 7,200nm."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20278
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:29 pm

Devilfish wrote:
To clarify some of the details.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ch-452235/


The last paragraph is very interesting..... :spin: .....

Quote:
"It is set to start test-flying the smaller A330neo variant, the A330-800, within the next few weeks. Airbus is also developing a higher-weight version of both models, taking the maximum take-off weight to 251t and extending the A330-900’s range to 7,200nm."

I think a high MTIW A338 would make a great freighter. But is 251T enough to activate the center tank on a NEO?

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3627
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:57 pm

WIederling wrote:
United857 wrote:
The range quotes on Airbus' website need to be taken with a grain of salt for the first couple of A330neo's produced because they are for the 251 tonne variant entering service sometime in 2020. The ones delivered before then are still of the 242t variant, the same MTOW as the newest A332/A333 and will not have such a large range increase.


ja, that ominous grain of salt.

From the backgrounder:
The A330-800 at 251t can fly up to 8,150nm (15,094km) km
and the A330-900 up to 7,200nm (13,334km)
with an entry into service in 2020
.

From Airbus website:
-800 range of 7,500 nautical miles, the A330-800neo typically will seat 257 passengers in three classes of service
-900 range of 7,200 @ 287 pax

bit of a mix there -900 values are both apparently for the 242/5 t MTOW version?


The shorter ranges are for the 242t model, current Airbus web site & longer ranges for the 251t model.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:36 am

SteelChair wrote:
Wasn't the original spec -10% block fuel vis a vis the 330 ceo?

I'm guessing the -25% number is burn per seat versus 767-300ER.

That’s music to Delta’s ears.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:02 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I think a high MTIW A338 would make a great freighter. But is 251T enough to activate the center tank on a NEO?

The A338 will have the same installed thrust(?) and wings as its sibling for a considerably smaller capacity frame...doesn't the tradeoff work out fine for the role :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:27 pm

Now that the plane is certified, when is first delivery?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20278
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:59 pm

Devilfish wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I think a high MTIW A338 would make a great freighter. But is 251T enough to activate the center tank on a NEO?

The A338 will have the same installed thrust(?) and wings as its sibling for a considerably smaller capacity frame...doesn't the tradeoff work out fine for the role :?:

The A332F cannot use the center tank and thus lacks enough range to sell.

The A332F has an empty weight of 109.4 metric tons. Now the A333 has an OEW of 129.4 t, the A339 has 137 tons or a gain of 7.6t.

So the MTOW is increasing 9tons from 242 to 251. So an A338F could carry 1.4t more, but the center tank is tricky. Once you start filling it, you must assume 1500kg (going from memory on the A330) of fuel isn't usable. So you cannot just add a little fuel to the center tank to gain range, it must be a minimum of 4t or 5t or else activating the center tank on a freighter actually *reduces* range. (You need more fuel to carry the 1500kg of unusable fuel than you can load).

The A332F has only sold 42 airframes and many are already being sold on the secondary market. Due to the costs of buying a widebody, they must have range to compete. Recall a freighter almost always flies with more weight of payload than a fully loaded passenger plane. The maximum for the A332F is 68.6 metric tons versus the passenger 45.6 tons. You won't be making a profit flying with less than 45 tons, so I'm not sure why Airbus quotes ranges for the A332F that allow the center tank when in practice operators need to carry more weight of payload to make a profit and thus lose TATL and similar range capability.
We had a thread on why the A332F was so unpopular:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1400075
From that thread:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The payload/volume/range of the A330F puts it in a unique position. It is rather heavy to be used on short haul 500-2000 mile flights, yet it doesn’t have enough range and payload to fly the long haul flights efficiently. It isn’t a bad plane, but it kind of fits in a niche market.


I believe another 3t to 5t of MTOW for the A338F would make it an incredible seller as that would extend the range making it so much more flexible. A330s are heavy with stuff to optimize them for 6+ hour flights (large engines, large wings, and literally tons of fuel tank capacity which has a weight). So they are not competitive with the 767 on shorter freight missions (< 2000nm). But they lack the range for mid-west US freight hubs to say Germany.
This is my estimate of A332F usable range from MUC (winter winds, when you *need* the range). It misses the USA and India.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3200nm%40muc
The A338F would sell well with 68t of payload and 4500+nm of range.

In comparison, the sales:
A332F: 42 (38 delivered) (A333 P2F conversions starting, just a few in work and IIRC 1 complete). Only 4 in backlog+tankers
777F: 200 (all to be factory built, the SF program or BCF program hasn't officially launched despite rumors, I suspect due to floor beam replacement costs).
767F: =212 (factory freighters ordered, still selling)+58 SF conversions. 68 in backlog (+ tankers)
Note: I couldn't easily find how many A300Fs were built (wikipedia has a different format for that aircraft for whatever reason).


On DHL's A333 P2F: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... -dhl-.html

The A338 pax is competing against the better optimized for range 789 or A359, so I really do not expect sales unless Airbus offers an amazing deal.
A338, 132 tons empty, wing area
789 128.85 tons empty

Is there a market for the A339? :yes: AirAsia :duck: ;) (Don't worry, I know TAM, DL, and Azul have also bought.) The reality it is a TATL hauler. Now get the A338F a TATL hauler (which the A332 based F isn't).

I see a market for two hundred A338F if there is a small additional MTOW increase to help the range.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2391
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:08 pm

Has TAP ordered the 242T A339 or the 251T A339? Can the first A339s delivered as 242T be re-certified as 251T MTOW?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8270
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:29 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Wasn't the original spec -10% block fuel vis a vis the 330 ceo?

I'm guessing the -25% number is burn per seat versus 767-300ER.

That’s music to Delta’s ears.


Delta could have had that performance five years ago with NW's 787 order for 18 frames.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1156
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:27 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The A332F cannot use the center tank and thus lacks enough range to sell.

The A332F has an empty weight of 109.4 metric tons. Now the A333 has an OEW of 129.4 t, the A339 has 137 tons or a gain of 7.6t.

So the MTOW is increasing 9tons from 242 to 251. So an A338F could carry 1.4t more, but the center tank is tricky. Once you start filling it, you must assume 1500kg (going from memory on the A330) of fuel isn't usable. So you cannot just add a little fuel to the center tank to gain range, it must be a minimum of 4t or 5t or else activating the center tank on a freighter actually *reduces* range. (You need more fuel to carry the 1500kg of unusable fuel than you can load).

The A332F has only sold 42 airframes and many are already being sold on the secondary market. Due to the costs of buying a widebody, they must have range to compete. Recall a freighter almost always flies with more weight of payload than a fully loaded passenger plane. The maximum for the A332F is 68.6 metric tons versus the passenger 45.6 tons. You won't be making a profit flying with less than 45 tons, so I'm not sure why Airbus quotes ranges for the A332F that allow the center tank when in practice operators need to carry more weight of payload to make a profit and thus lose TATL and similar range capability.
We had a thread on why the A332F was so unpopular:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1400075
From that thread:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The payload/volume/range of the A330F puts it in a unique position. It is rather heavy to be used on short haul 500-2000 mile flights, yet it doesn’t have enough range and payload to fly the long haul flights efficiently. It isn’t a bad plane, but it kind of fits in a niche market.


I believe another 3t to 5t of MTOW for the A338F would make it an incredible seller as that would extend the range making it so much more flexible. A330s are heavy with stuff to optimize them for 6+ hour flights (large engines, large wings, and literally tons of fuel tank capacity which has a weight). So they are not competitive with the 767 on shorter freight missions (< 2000nm). But they lack the range for mid-west US freight hubs to say Germany.
This is my estimate of A332F usable range from MUC (winter winds, when you *need* the range). It misses the USA and India.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3200nm%40muc
The A338F would sell well with 68t of payload and 4500+nm of range.

In comparison, the sales:
A332F: 42 (38 delivered) (A333 P2F conversions starting, just a few in work and IIRC 1 complete). Only 4 in backlog+tankers
777F: 200 (all to be factory built, the SF program or BCF program hasn't officially launched despite rumors, I suspect due to floor beam replacement costs).
767F: =212 (factory freighters ordered, still selling)+58 SF conversions. 68 in backlog (+ tankers)
Note: I couldn't easily find how many A300Fs were built (wikipedia has a different format for that aircraft for whatever reason).


On DHL's A333 P2F: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... -dhl-.html

The A338 pax is competing against the better optimized for range 789 or A359, so I really do not expect sales unless Airbus offers an amazing deal.
A338, 132 tons empty, wing area
789 128.85 tons empty

Is there a market for the A339? :yes: AirAsia :duck: ;) (Don't worry, I know TAM, DL, and Azul have also bought.) The reality it is a TATL hauler. Now get the A338F a TATL hauler (which the A332 based F isn't).

I see a market for two hundred A338F if there is a small additional MTOW increase to help the range.

Lightsaber


So many inaccuracies in this post. A solid FAIL.

In terms of load and trim, the A332F is for all intents and purpose the same as the 332. You can use the centre tank. The whole 140k litres if you want to. You'll just be busting the mtow.

The 332F can fly tatl with ease. A solid 60t payload going off the dynamic variant performance charts I have. EU-India would be a walk in the park.

The operating empty weights for our 233t A330-300s average about 124t. Our newest -300s with a regional cabin have op weights less than 122t. Airbus stated a 4-5t gain in operating weight for the -900neo which would put it in the ball park of our 789s at 128-129t. Assuming they do as good a job on the neo pylon-engine integration as they've done on the 320, I have no reason to doubt their claims. Your numbers would put the -900neo in the same field as the 772 and 350-900.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The A338 pax is competing against the better optimized for range 789 or A359, so I really do not expect sales unless Airbus offers an amazing deal.

At ~$260M vs ~$290M and ~$317M list respectively -- I think there's much wiggle room for intense haggling...Boeing's newfound manufacturing economies notwithstanding. :twocents:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4291
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: A330-900 is certified by EASA

Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:05 pm

Just a reminder, this thread is about the A339 EASA certification, so please stick on topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

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