... A330NEO ... for a MTOW of 160t and OEW of 80t, 40t (!) lower than an A330. For lower capacity-range flights. ...
Those systems wouldn't save 40t.
I know Airbus is working to remove 1000kg from landing gear. A CFRP wing and wingbox would save 6t.
The medium range, shorter A310-200 has an OEW of 79t, the long haul, longer A330-200 has a OEW of 120t.
The wing box / wing, landing gears can be made a few tons lighter compared to the early eighties A310 technology level.
Next to that, the A310-200 is shorter than the A332, the tail surfaces could be reduced too.
I was doing some quick explorations on an A330 based NMA yesterday. Two versions, the shorter being able to go 5000NM with a 30t payload, a 15% seat capacity stretch trading payload for range.
I think Lightsaber missed your "MTOW of 160 t" statement. Also you need to be more precise. The first post sounded as if you want to keep A330-200/ -300 length. Even in your second post your "15% seat capacity stretch" sounded as if it refers to A330. I also got confused.
While I'm nor qualified enough to make reliable statements, I chip in with some rough assumptions. I used German Wikipedia for A310. I believe the A330 OEW in Wiki may be confused with empty weight. I used A330 OEW from http://www.team.aero/images/aviation_da ... e_A330.pdf
Nice link for A330: https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/20/airbu ... at-market/
A310-200: length: 46,7 m, span: 43,9 m, OEW: .80 t, MTOW: 157 t, MTOW-OEW: .77 t, fuel capacity: ..55.200 l, range 3.600 nm, max. 240 passenger
A310-300: length: 46,7 m, span: 43,9 m, OEW: .83 t, MTOW: 164 t, MTOW-OEW: .81 t, fuel capacity: ..75.470 l, range 5.200 nm, max. 240 passenger
A330-200: length: 58,8 m, span: 60,3 m ,OEW: 121 t, MTOW: 242 t, MTOW-OEW: 121 t, fuel capacity: 139.090 l, range 7.250 nm, max. 404 passenger
A330-300: length: 63,7 m, span: 60,3 m ,OEW: 126 t, MTOW: 242 t, MTOW-OEW: 116 t, fuel capacity: 139.090 l, range 6.350 nm, max. 440 passenger
The wing of A310 is only 43.9 m. I assume a 160 t MTOW plane would get at least a 51 m span.
for gate sizes.)
Do you have rather a 47 m or 59 m long plane length in mind? You spoke of a 15% seat capacity stretch. I assume you mean A310 + 15%.
In this case 90t OEW and 170t MTOW and a 52 m wing for a 52 m long plane may do. It would sit max. 280 passengers. If one keeps the 55.000 l fuel capacity of A310-200, maybe one can reach 5000nm. I just wonder if the OEW of 90t is enough. I might be a few tons off.
What about a 60m carbon wing for 210 t MTOW? The original wing was designed with MTOW and fuel requirement of A340 in mind.
110 t OEW, 210t MTOW and 84.000 l fuel (=60% of now). Similar plane like A330-200 (58,8 m) and a shortened 55m version, but cruise speed reduced from 870 km/h to 830 km/ h for short/ medium range flights with carbon wing designed for that speed.
212t was the MTOW of A330-300 when it entered service. At that time it was considered not enough range. But at that time there was no pilot shortage, but a shortage of planes with high range. Today's wide-bodies all have huge range and there are not enough pilots.
I assume depending on pilot availability and oil/ CO2 price in 10 years such planes may or may not sell well.
I never thought of it before, but I like your idea.
A shorter plane needs bigger tail surfaces. However as Boeing will use the same tail surface for B787-8 as well as B787-10, it probably doesn't matter much.
To Lightsaber: Good info. Thanks