User avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:23 pm

Here's an idea why don't Airbus strap a couple of those brand new 747-8 engines on the 330? Seriously, how much work would have to be done? Why didn't Airbus create a 330 NEO. No need for a major change of the aircraft, just new engines. One year for certification? Roll it out, they should have done this 3 or 4 years ago. Massive increase in range and fuel savings.

[Edited 2012-11-29 09:24:22]
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:31 pm

FG now reporting that AIB claims that while the 787-9's cash operating costs per seat would be 6% lower its direct operating cost per seat will be 7% higher than the 242t A330-300's. Boeing gives the range of the 787-9 at 8,000-8,500nm.
 
Scipio
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:59 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 28):
The current aircraft performance wise is good for over 250t.

Now that they have bitten the bullet on the center fuel tank, the case for further MTOW increases and sharklets has become a lot stronger.

How far would a 250t A330-300 with sharklets fly? Approaching 7,000 NM?

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 51):
the 787-9's cash operating costs per seat would be 6% lower

Adding sharklets should reduce this by 1-2 %.


Edited for overly optimistic effect of the sharklets (due to confusing cash operating costs and fuel efficiency).

[Edited 2012-11-29 10:36:17]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:16 pm

Were I an LH/LCC such as AirAsia I would definitely be looking at these improved 333's as an alternative to the much more expensive and harder to get 787/350's. Not that anyone wouldn't be interested but certainly the cost/benefit analysis might favor the A330 for many, many missions.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9597
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:22 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 35):
Very nice stats but the 787-10 will also cost 3 times as much to buy,
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 35):
They are bringing a smaller gun to a gunfight, a .22 will kill you just as dead as a 40 cal if it catches you right.

If it was this simple the 767 would still be selling like hotcakes.   The increase in size and capacity of the A330 over the 767 was of greater significance to airlnes, there is a point when it is worth it and another when it is too much, truly not that simple.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 39):
... which is only of interest if you are actually able to fill these extra seats.

Sound like another jab at the A380, say it ain't so  
If the economics of the larger a/c allows increased revenvue on a smaller curve than the increase in purchase / operating cost you have a winner.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:26 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 51):
Airbus claims that while the 787-9's cash operating costs per seat would be 6% lower its direct operating cost per seat will be 7% higher than the 242t A330-300's.

So how do Cash Operating and Direct Operating Costs differ for an airline?

It would also be helpful to know what formulas Airbus is using to determine DOC. PianoX has two - Association of European Airlines formulas and their own formulas (which were previously used by a major airframe company for project analysis - my guess is Boeing). Association of European Airlines also has a medium-range and long-range formula - running the former probably favors the A330-300 while running the later probably favors the 787-9.

And then it would be nice to know how many seats each plane is configured with, as the 787-9 and A330-300 have almost exactly the same cabin floorspace so they should be able to seat the same number of people (the A330 across more rows of Economy due to lit's longer cabin and the 787-9 due to having one extra seat per row of Economy).

Hopefully Boeing won't need to take out an advertisement showing an A330-300 with a rather pronounced proboscis.   

Seriously, the 787-10 should have a higher capital cost (both airframe and engine) and it will probably have a higher flight crew cost (larger and newer plane so more senior flight crews). Landing, ground-handling and navigation fees will be higher, as well (assuming a 252t TOW for the 787-10 vs. 242t for the A330-300).

Not sure how airframe and engine maintenance costs will pencil out - the 787-10 and GEnx/Trent 1000 are newer designs, so on the one hand it should benefit from reliability due to experience, but on the other it is introducing a number of new systems so there is the chance for higher initial rates as they work out the bugs. A330 spares will also be much cheaper due to availability.

Fuel price should strongly favor the 787-10. Interest and insurance rates may, as well. Residual value fraction should also be higher (newer family and less of them in service).

Cabin crew should be a wash (same number of folks - though 787's may see more senior crews as a newer model). Ditto with utilization coefficients if they're put on the same missions.

Still, with fuel being such a major part of DOC, I don't see how the A330-300's lower costs in areas like fees and flight crew pay will significantly counter the lower fuel bills of the 787-10 (as well as any other areas the 787-10 might have lower costs).

As an aside, if Airbus' claims of a 6% lower COC for the 787-9 versus the A330-300 are true, when added to their claims of a 7% lower COC for the A350-900 compared to the 787-9, that puts the A350-900's COC at 13% lower than the A330-300. That should finally put to rest the idea of an "A330neo".

[Edited 2012-11-29 11:22:52]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18689
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:49 pm

I'm must say, this is one of the better a.net discussion for a while. Kudos to everyone for keeping the discussion on the up!   

I'm still curious how much weight the center fuel tank adds. Does anyone know how much 'unusable fuel' must be assumed? That could be the most painful bit of the weight...

Now, IIRC, the A332 was launched with 6,800nm promised range... We're starting to see the A333 creep into the missions EK originally bought the A332 for!   

Note: I'm surprised PM hasn't touted which engine vendor has the advantage at high MTOWs... (Best hot/high thrust.)

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 39):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
And more seats equals lower CASM, especially when trip costs are similar (or lower), which is why the larger models of each family tend to be the ones that sell better.

... which is only of interest if you are actually able to fill these extra seats.

Flying-Tiger, the additional seats also matter for resale. One reason I speculate sales of the 737-7MAX and A319NEO are as we've seen. With the 789 having better long haul efficiency, I expect to see the A330s retreat to the length of route they are more competitive, which means low demand for A332s.  
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 41):
that's exactly the figure I had in mind as Airbus is on record for selling A330's for around that figure and of making money on the deal

  

I still cannot afford one.  
Quoting r2rho (Reply 42):
The A330-300 has seen its MTOW rise by 10.9% but its range is now up 43.6% from EIS."

And that is why we've seen a rebound in A333 sales.    It is 'stretching its legs' well beyond the narrowbodies.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 43):

I believe this is the point where the A330-300 has become more capable than the original weight A340-300 for all but hot/high missions.

   And is why A343 resale values/lease rates are weak.

Recent thread on lease rates:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
Even Airbus expects that the A330 family will see it's sales fall as the 787 and A350 enter service in large numbers.

Not a surprise. Hence why they need to keep market going. I'm impressed with the improvements. I suspect A380 engineering diverted Airbus from doing these improvements earlier.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 47):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 32):
Is the A332 going to 242t too or is the tail moment arm impacting the MTOW?

The FI article quotes the 242t A330-200 as gaining another 350Nm beyond the 238t A330-200. -

Thank you my friend. That is good news for a few more sales.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 47):
which should put it squarely in 7 500Nm nominal range territory

Not bad at all.   But once the 787s are out in numbers, I expect few A332 sales. The A333 economics are just enough better to keep it going.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
And then it would be nice to know how many seats each plane is configured with

The decision will be in the 8 or 9 across Y. If an airline goes 9 across Y, the 787 will win. 8 across and the A333 has many more routes it is competitive. But that will depend on each airline's customer base as to which seating arrangement.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:56 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
'm still curious how much weight the center fuel tank adds.

As the tank is already there, just not sealed and plumbed for use, I would imagine the additional weight would not bee too extreme.



Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
The A333 economics are just enough better to keep it going.

It's certainly going to make the A330-200 and A330-300 a stronger freighter and those two models slide nicely in-between the 767-300F and 777F.



Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
The decision will be in the 8 or 9 across Y. If an airline goes 9 across Y, the 787 will win. 8 across and the A333 has many more routes it is competitive.

If an airline is configuring (non-premium) Economy on a 787 at 8-abreast as opposed to 9-abreast, I would expect that is due to a feeling they can charge more for a ticket on an 8-abreast 787 vs. an 8-abreast A330 due to the additional comfort so the extra revenues would more than cover the extra costs (otherwise why do it?).

[Edited 2012-11-29 12:34:25]
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7086
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:46 pm

I'd say the RR and PW models will sell more when ordered. Also, I am sure airlines like KLM, Korean, and Malaysia will pick up some. We might even see Air Asia order some as well. I personally believe this model will sell like hotcakes due to the increase of its range. I think US will order a few. That way they can use it to upgauge current A332 routes.

KH
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1839
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:45 pm

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 23):
The Centre MLG bay is also fitted on all A330/340. This is aft of the centre tank in the undercarriage bay. On the A330 it is just an empty box. This would never be suitable for fuel.

If they wanted to do a big jump in MTOW, could they just put the undercarriage in there?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11138
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:18 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12):
implies that the fuel capacity is increased by over a third, but range only increases 500nm? Also, sounds a bit woolly that 'Airbus HOPES the range will extend to 6,100nm', shouldn't it know that?

This is presumably the Airbus reaction to the B787-10 project. Just because the MTOW is raised a bit doesn't necessarily lead to many new orders as most airlines won't need the extra range. In fact the article states that an MTOW increase to 240t attracted only one customer.

        

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 15):
Does that mean that the current A333s are flying around wasted weight having an empty tank they cannot use?

Yes as the space is currently not usable, but the structures are still there.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12):
This will increase the -300's fuel capacity from 97,500 litres to more than 139,000 litres. The modification will include tank inerting.

So, about 9,432 US gallons more fuel to go another 500 nm? That is about 64,140 lbs, which is 29.2 tonnes. Something just isn't adding up here. How do you squeeze 29 tonnes (of fuel) into a gross weight increase of only 4 tonnes over the current airplane? Something is being left behind, either pax or cargo, or both. Also 64000 lbs of fuel is about 3.5 hours flying time for an A-333, so why is it only going another 500 nm (about 1 hour and 15-20 minutes flying time)?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
I also believe this will help the A330-300F when Airbus launches it.

              

I normally agree with you, Stitch. But with the A-332F burning up the sales books (NOT!!!), I see no reason for Airbus to launch a new build A-333F program.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 43):I believe this is the point where the A330-300 has become more capable than the original weight A340-300 for all but hot/high missions.With a 50t payload, a 257t TOW and CFM56-5C4 engines, the A340-300 can fly 5000nm. With a 45t payload and a 242t TOW, the A330-300X looks to be good for around 4250nm.

        

Quoting astuteman (Reply 47):
Personally I believe we're seeing the "slippage" of the 787-10's EIS providing Airbus with a window of opportunity into which to sell these upgraded A330-300's for a number of years more without breaking the bank in doing so.

Perhaps, but that could also become a window Airbus could fall out of. I hope they are not any higher than the second floor.

I see the Boeing "slippage" differently. They seemed to have learned their lesson of trying to have multipule airplane EIS in the same year (the B-787-8 and B-747-8). Boeing has a lot on their plate right now, as does Airbus.

The Boeing EIS schedule:
B-787-9, 2014 (possibly as far back as 2015)
KC-46A, 2016
B-737-8MAX, 2017
B-737-9MAX, 2018
B-787-10, 2018
B-737-7MAX, 2019
B-777-9X, 2020

The Airbus EIS schedule (including this A-333IGW)
A-400M, 2012 (most likely 2013 or 2014)
A-350-9, 2014
A-320NEO, 2015
A-330-300-242 tonne, 2015
A-350-10, 2016
A-321NEO, 2016
A-350-8, 2017
A-319NEO, 2017 (possibly as far back as 2018)
A-380-8F, 2018 (promised in the ten year push back, but not likely)

I might have missed one or two for each OEM, but you get the idea. Boeing has 7 different models to certify in the next 8 years. Airbus has 8 different models, and possibly 9 models, to certify in the next 6 years.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 50):
Here's an idea why don't Airbus strap a couple of those brand new 747-8 engines on the 330? Seriously, how much work would have to be done?

Won't work. The B-747-8 GEnx-2B-67 is a 67,000 lb thrust engine, the A-330s have a 72,000 lb thrust engines, and this new version may require more thrust than that, maybe 75,000 lbs of thrust. Perhaps the A-380 engines will work?

Quoting Scipio (Reply 52):
Now that they have bitten the bullet on the center fuel tank, the case for further MTOW increases and sharklets has become a lot stronger.How far would a 250t A330-300 with sharklets fly? Approaching 7,000 NM?

The airframe, as it is today, with todays engines will not be a 250 tonne airplane without significant reengineering.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
As the tank is already there, just not sealed and plumbed for use, I would imagine the additional weight would not bee too extreme.

The plumbing, pumps, and valves, with more powerful engines alone will add somewhere between 1000 kg and 1500 kg to the empty weight of the airplane. Then you have to look at all the supporting structure. Was it trimmed to reduce weight in earlier versions? If it was, than those parts will need to be restrenghtened. That much weight into a 4 tonne IGW version really only gives you another 3 tonnes of capability.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:49 pm

Will this make the A330-300 like the A330-200 in that they cannot be dispatched with full tanks? If I remember correctly, the A330-200 has so much fuel capacity that full tanks and no payload pushes the airplane above MTOW. Rarely can airplanes dispatch with full tanks and a useful payload. It looks like Airbus is increasing the MTOW and now the extra fuel may be needed.

I would expect few airlines to want to activate the center tank although some like Asiana and Turkish do use the A330-300 near its maximum range. By putting fuel in there, they now have to meet all the SFAR88 requirements for bonding and grounding which require additional maintenance. They also have to carry around extra fuel pumps and tank units for fuel quantity indication.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1839
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:51 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
So, about 9,432 US gallons more fuel to go another 500 nm? That is about 64,140 lbs, which is 29.2 tonnes. Something just isn't adding up here. How do you squeeze 29 tonnes (of fuel) into a gross weight increase of only 4 tonnes over the current airplane? Something is being left behind, either pax or cargo, or both. Also 64000 lbs of fuel is about 3.5 hours flying time for an A-333, so why is it only going another 500 nm (about 1 hour and 15-20 minutes flying time)?

There is a lot more fuel capacity, you won't be able to use much of it. The tanks already there, so making that capacity available is not a waste of effort, it's just how big it already is.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:51 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):

So you feel Airbus will charge $87 million for a 242t A330-300. And they have the balls to accuse Boeing of "predatory pricing".

It is nothing about predatory pricing, Airbus has paid the A330/A340 R&D all off, all the really have to cover is the cost of manufacture, the will generate more than enough profit from supporting these frames for 10-20 years after they leave the factory that is where the true ongoing cash flow is. Boeing on the other hand via project accounting have increased the number of 787 aircraft the R&D will be spread over now to over 1100 frames. That means the in real terms the first 750 or so (my guess) 787s will not return a cent to Boeing, it will just be covering the cost of R&D and manufacturing. Their only cash flow stream will be supporting the aircraft.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):

As to cargo, airlines are moving more of it in the bellies of their passenger planes rather than on dedicated freighter aircraft. So larger cargo volumes are seen as a benefit

That is true on routes it makes sense. The 787 is not some magic bullet, it has limitations like any other aircraft, the mass of 44 LD3 is around 10,000 lb, that has to be taken away from other revenue payload, either passengers or cargo. The space does not come free of restrictions.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 38):

I don't mean to sound rude, but could someone please tell me why a slightly improved A333 (25 year-old design) is supposed to "kill" the much more modern 787-10, yet at the same time, the 77W and even some believe a vastly improved 777X (original design approx same age as A330) is going to be far and away eclipsed by the A350-1000? I'm not really following the logic here.

The A333 will not "kill" a 787-10, it will however be available for airlines to purchase today, with a "short" in fleet planning terms availability.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 39):
Take a look at China: most consumer electronics are now made in inland China where no intercontinental passengers fly to - 10 years ago this was Hong Kong.

Not really HKG, more the pearl river delta, a lot is still there. The new road link should improve cargo volumes out of HKG. We fly to a number of those inland cities pulling 100+ tonnes of cargo out each day. It is a job too big for under floor cargo on a passenger aircraft, we are talking about some factories that have 250,000 employees.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 43):
I believe this is the point where the A330-300 has become more capable than the original weight A340-300 for all but hot/high missions. (Hasn't quite reached the level of the A340-300X, but it's getting close.)

Still not there.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 44):
What I meant to say is that apparently the space needed for a central tank is there, but not, as some of the contributions and the term "activate" suggest, the whole infrastructure in the sense that it is only a matter of some paperwork being signed before the tanks can be filled.

That is correct, there is some physical modifications that would be needed. In some ways it is not a lot different to the way the additional fuel tanks in the cargo bays would be installed.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
A brand-new off the line 235t A330-300 has an average list price of $231 million and an average value of $101 million, so if airlines are indeed paying only $87 million for them, then that could explain why the plane is so popular - airlines are playing speculator.

This was in the local papers here a while back, suggesting airlines pay $140 million for a new 777-300ER and $90 million for a new A330-300. The list price on the 777-300ER is $315 million. Considering a lot of engines and APUs are leased these days, it would means an airline would be paying Boeing less than $80 million for a new 777-300ER airframe as the engine/apu is a separate power by the hour contract.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 50):
Here's an idea why don't Airbus strap a couple of those brand new 747-8 engines on the 330? Seriously, how much work would have to be done? Why didn't Airbus create a 330 NEO. No need for a major change of the aircraft, just new engines. One year for certification? Roll it out, they should have done this 3 or 4 years ago. Massive increase in range and fuel savings.

They have looked at this, it requires more engineering work, mainly to do with the spar/pylon spar attachment/pylon. I think they are of the view if you are going to do so much work, you may as well spend a little more an do a new wing.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 51):
FG now reporting that AIB claims that while the 787-9's cash operating costs per seat would be 6% lower its direct operating cost per seat will be 7% higher than the 242t A330-300's. Boeing gives the range of the 787-9 at 8,000-8,500nm.

It is difficult to take these quotes like this an place any real meaning on them unless you have the conditions it is based upon. That statement will not be true across all ranges, and will depend on how they passenger cabins are configured. They also tend to be very sensitive to fuel prices.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 52):

How far would a 250t A330-300 with sharklets fly? Approaching 7,000 NM?

I think it would be a comfortable 12 hr aircraft, more like 6000 ground nm.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):

So, about 9,432 US gallons more fuel to go another 500 nm? That is about 64,140 lbs, which is 29.2 tonnes. Something just isn't adding up here. How do you squeeze 29 tonnes (of fuel) into a gross weight increase of only 4 tonnes over the current airplane? Something is being left behind, either pax or cargo, or both. Also 64000 lbs of fuel is about 3.5 hours flying time for an A-333, so why is it only going another 500 nm (about 1 hour and 15-20 minutes flying time)?

You are being obtuse. It has been explained in a number of posts above that the aircraft is presently fuel volume limited, and this change would make is MTOW limited. Airbus always had the option of addition center tanks however very fey customers took them up on that. Even on the longest A330-200 flights I have heard of (e.e. AKL-LAX-AKL), they only uplift around 1 hrs fuel in the center tank, they are talking about the same ballpark figure here.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 61):
Will this make the A330-300 like the A330-200 in that they cannot be dispatched with full tanks? If I remember correctly, the A330-200 has so much fuel capacity that full tanks and no payload pushes the airplane above MTOW.

You can dispatch an aircraft any way you like, the aircraft still needs to be loaded to within limits.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
vaus77w
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:05 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:56 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
With a 50t payload, a 257t TOW and CFM56-5C4 engines, the A340-300 can fly 5000nm. With a 45t payload and a 242t TOW, the A330-300X looks to be good for around 4250nm.

I have a question- how high in MTOW can the A330 go without adding an extra set of MLG wheels (like the A340 has)? Given the 343 has a MTOW of 257T, I would imagine they are approaching the limits of the current MLG.
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:10 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
I will agree with you that I believe Airbus can build an A330-300 for under $87 million
Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
Airbus is improving the value of the A330-200 and A330-300, so selling them for less just doesn't make sense to me.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
So maybe deep-discounting will be Airbus' strategy going forward. But I for one am inclined to think that such discounts are - and will continue to be - the exception

I think what BoeingVista was saying is that Airbus have the ability to offer such discounts - but they would only do so when necessary which will no doubt be quite late in the day as 787-10 EIS approaches.

I suspect that Boeing may not offer significant discounts on the 787-10 for the first few years of production for the simple reasons that they won't have to - there will be significant pent up demand for the aircraft from major airlines and production slots may be limited until early in the next decade. The 787-10 could easily have 3-400 orders by EIS (and perhaps more - 500 would not be outrageous) as there are so many 330's and 772's to be replaced.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
With the 789 having better long haul efficiency, I expect to see the A330s retreat to the length of route they are more competitive, which means low demand for A332s

The 330 has often been quoted as the more efficient aircraft on sub 4000nm sectors in comparison to the 788. The advent of the larger 787 models will no doubt push this sector length down to sub 3000nm and further. However, there is a huge amount of traffic in the Asian region operating sectors of around 2000nm which could still make good use of the 330 in such an environment - and it will come at half the capital cost of a 787-10. Other issues such as spares and commonality will still benefit the 330.


In terms of 787-10 EIS I see the main risk to schedule slippage being any problems encoutered with the 737-MAX.

Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2012-11-29 18:29:06]

[Edited 2012-11-29 18:29:51]
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:43 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 35):
Very nice stats but the 787-10 will also cost 3 times as much to buy, the cargo market is in free fall and if it was all about moving the maximum amounts of people everybody would be flying A380's and 77W's.

So you feel Airbus will charge $87 million for a 242t A330-300.
And they have the balls to accuse Boeing of "predatory pricing".

There was this piece a while back about what Nepal Airlines was paying for their A330. The quote below shows what Airbus was selling them an A330 & A320 for. This was for One of each type, Not a big customer buying dozens of airfames. Recently, Airbus agreed to sell Nepal Airlines the aircraft for the 2009 agreed prices.

So that $87 million dollar price may be close to the mark...

http://www.kantipuronline.com/2012/1...irlines-airbus-begin-talks/362454/


"The meeting will discuss the status of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) that the two companies had signed on November 6, 2009, according to an NAC official.

As a unilateral termination of the MoU would be a breach of agreement, it was necessary to sort out the legal hurdles mutually, government officials said.

However, Airbus, during its presentation in Tuesday’s meeting, said it would not be able to supply aircraft at the price quoted three years ago, according to one of

the officials who attended the meeting.

Airbus had quoted $ 41.28 million for a narrow-body aircraft and $ 92.84 million for the wide-body variant at the time of MoU signing.'
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
katanapilot
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:25 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:06 am

for those, like me, that don't know what a GTF is and get annoyed by people that use industry acronyms without explanation, i googled it and it's a Geared Turbofan
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:51 am

Quoting katanapilot (Reply 67):
for those, like me, that don't know what a GTF is and get annoyed by people that use industry acronyms without explanation, i googled it and it's a Geared Turbofan

It's in pretty common aviation parlance these days, even for armchair airline CEO's like myself.

Not sure if anyone posted this link...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...nhanced-a330-against-787-9-379596/
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Topic Author
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:53 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
I will agree with you that I believe Airbus can build an A330-300 for under $87 million so I will agree with you that Airbus would not lose money on delivering an airframe for that average sales price. In fact, I know of at least one A330 deal with a discount even deeper than the 62% that selling an A330-300 for $87 million would be.

So maybe deep-discounting will be Airbus' strategy going forward. But I for one am inclined to think that such discounts are - and will continue to be - the exception, rather than the rule. Even Airbus expects that the A330 family will see it's sales fall as the 787 and A350 enter service in large numbers.

I agree that sales of the A330 will fall but we really should have expected that fall to have occurred already. What I think is going on with Airbus A330 pricing and sales is that they sell at a deep discount which allows them to move product and get volume economies but make it up by "overpricing" spares like all OEM's.

So Airbus claws back some of the discount through 'super normal' profits out of spares but some airlines may feel new spares are too high priced and look for cheaper 2nd hand spares this combined with real improvements in performance have the knock on effect of making it worthwhile for some airlines to sell their old A330's to be parted out for spares and buy new ones at a deep discount! Which keeps sales up.. It is a bit unusual to see airlines replacing old aircraft with new aircraft of the same type is it not?

I'm not sure how Airbus have managed to get this to work but its a neat trick that would be worth further study.

[Edited 2012-11-29 20:55:29]
BV
 
astuteman
Posts: 7027
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:41 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12): implies that the fuel capacity is increased by over a third, but range only increases 500nm? Also, sounds a bit woolly that 'Airbus HOPES the range will extend to 6,100nm', shouldn't it know that?

This is presumably the Airbus reaction to the B787-10 project. Just because the MTOW is raised a bit doesn't necessarily lead to many new orders as most airlines won't need the extra range. In fact the article states that an MTOW increase to 240t attracted only one customer.
        

Not sure why you're checkmarking this. The 240t variant has been on sale for a whole 4 months.....
That it has secured one order in that timeframe tells us absolutely nothing.   

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
So, about 9,432 US gallons more fuel to go another 500 nm? That is about 64,140 lbs, which is 29.2 tonnes. Something just isn't adding up here

What doesn't add up is you haven't read the thread, where it has been explained ad-nauseam.

You could give the 748i another 40 tonnes of fuel capacity and it wouldn't fly it's payload a single nautical mile further.
(It would probably carry it less distance to be honest).
Presumably that doesn't add up either..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
I see the Boeing "slippage" differently.

I'm not sure how there is a "difference" to be seen.
I only commented on the expected presence of an EIS slippage for the 787-10. I said nothing whatsoever about its likely causes, as it doesn't matter.
 
RubberJungle
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:16 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:44 am

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12):
In fact the article states that an MTOW increase to 240t attracted only one customer.



No, it doesn't.

It says CIT is a customer. It doesn't say it's the only one.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:30 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 70):
The 240t variant has been on sale for a whole 4 months.....
That it has secured one order in that timeframe tells us absolutely nothing.

It is always nice to read about the facts with the correct perspective.  . You are (as usual) so right of course.
 
swallow
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:35 pm

I like Scott Hamilton's summary of the 333 vs. 7810 battle

Boeing claims the 787-10 will “kill” the A330-300. The market agrees–but only by the middle of the 2020 decade. Boeing can’t deliver enough 787-10s to make a dent in the global fleet before then. By then, the A330 will be about 30 years old and broadly at the end of its natural life cycle anyway. So what’s the big deal?

  

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com
The grass is greener where you water it
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:55 pm

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 64):

I have a question- how high in MTOW can the A330 go without adding an extra set of MLG wheels (like the A340 has)? Given the 343 has a MTOW of 257T, I would imagine they are approaching the limits of the current MLG.

Adding the A340 centre MLG should be simple and the wing should be good for the extra weight.

But why? It then starts to compete with the A350 and will lose the competition.

The largest potential market is short / mid haul with a full pax / freight potential, and that would be compromised by adding the extra structural weight of a centre MLG. Presumably why Airbus will make the activated centre tank an option as I understand it and not compulsory (a lesson perhaps learned from the compulsory HGW "improvement" to the A346?).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:26 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
I agree that sales of the A330 will fall but we really should have expected that fall to have occurred already.

They likely would have if the 787 hadn't taken an extra three years to come to market and some five years to reach the original 18-month delivery goals.

But airlines are in a growth mode again and if they can't get the best next-generation planes (A350 and 787), they'll happily take the best current-generation planes (A330 and 777).



Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
What I think is going on with Airbus A330 pricing and sales is that they sell at a deep discount which allows them to move product and get volume economies but make it up by "overpricing" spares like all OEM's.

Well we do know that ancillaries are worth a shedload of money.   

A fair bit of the current generation of A330HGW sales are leases and values and lease rates are significantly higher than for the lower-gross rate models. But even more important, IMO, is that many of these MTOW boosts are retrofittable to older frames also on lease. So when those leases end, the lessors can retrofit the MTOW boost and see a sharp rise in the rates they can get for the planes when they go to the next lessor. And because those planes will be significantly more capable thanks to those MTOW boosts, there will be customers waiting for them - those who may lack the capital to lease a new 787/A350 or wish to conserve their cash (ala DL with the 717 and MD-9x).

[Edited 2012-11-30 05:29:49]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18689
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:25 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
due to a feeling they can charge more for a ticket on an 8-abreast 787 vs. an 8-abreast A330 due to the additional comfort so the extra revenues would more than cover the extra costs (otherwise why do it?).

You are correct, but the range improvements will push the 787 to 9 across as the revenue gain of a 787 in 8 across versus an A330 in 8 across is marginal at best. But a customer might pick an 8 across over a 9 across configuration.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 65):
The 330 has often been quoted as the more efficient aircraft on sub 4000nm sectors in comparison to the 788. The advent of the larger 787 models will no doubt push this sector length down to sub 3000nm and further.

I see the A330 staying competitive up to TATL (say 4500nm) range. The 787-10 will be economical, if built, but at a higher cost per mission. The A330 market will not last forever, but it still has some time.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 70):
The 240t variant has been on sale for a whole 4 months.....
That it has secured one order in that timeframe tells us absolutely nothing.

The push to 242t tells us what customers really wanted.  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
Well we do know that ancillaries are worth a shedload of money.

Oh yea.   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
So when those leases end, the lessors can retrofit the MTOW boost and see a sharp rise in the rates they can get for the planes when they go to the next lessor. And because those planes will be significantly more capable thanks to those MTOW boosts, there will be customers waiting for them

Which will help Airbus sell those lovely ancillaries.   

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 64):
I have a question- how high in MTOW can the A330 go without adding an extra set of MLG wheels (like the A340 has)? Given the 343 has a MTOW of 257T, I would imagine they are approaching the limits of the current MLG.

Close... but tires and breaks have improved, so there might be room to 245t to 250t, but no more. Also, the top A340-300X has a MTOW of 275t. I think you had a typo.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:07 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 74):

I cannot add much to the discussion on the CLG except o say with the gear deactivated in the stowed position on the A340 MTOW is limited to 230t. The CLG is there just for takeoff, it is not needed for landing.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):

On the A343, only the wing gear has brakes, they are good for over 280 t.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7027
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:08 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
Close... but tires and breaks have improved, so there might be room to 245t to 250t

The original A350 was going to be 245 tonnes. I'd feel comfortable with that being within reach of the A330. Beyond that, who knows?

Rgds
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:44 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 78):
Beyond that, who knows?


That in general is a testimonial of how good in general was the early design.
They let a lot of margin for improvement and flexibility for changes.
After all those years it has not yet reached its limits.
Really well done.
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18689
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:38 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 77):
On the A343, only the wing gear has brakes, they are good for over 280 t.

Interesting... However, that is with a very different engine out profile, so the A330 will have a lower MTOW than 280t.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 78):
The original A350 was going to be 245 tonnes. I'd feel comfortable with that being within reach of the A330. Beyond that, who knows?

Concur on 245t possible. I think 250t is possible with a little structural analysis.


I'm confused why they only did 242t. For a few more tons of fuel would continue to help the A333.

That plane needs proper winglets/sharklets!   

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:33 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 80):
I'm confused why they only did 242t. For a few more tons of fuel would continue to help the A333.

Could be a future Weight Variant. Airbus went to 573t with WV006 on the A380, even though they knew they could go to 575t. And a year later, so they did with WV008.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7027
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:58 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 80):
I'm confused why they only did 242t. For a few more tons of fuel would continue to help the A333.

I can only presume it's a "hanging fruit" thing - i.e. 242t was relatively simple compared to something greater.

Rgds
 
Scipio
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:51 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 63):
Quoting Scipio (Reply 52):

How far would a 250t A330-300 with sharklets fly? Approaching 7,000 NM?

I think it would be a comfortable 12 hr aircraft, more like 6000 ground nm.

I don't understand. As per FI, the 242t variant without sharklets will have a range of 6,100 NM.
Surely, range should go up with sharklets and an additional 8t of MTOW?
Can you please clarify?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 80):
That plane needs proper winglets/sharklets!   

Couldn't agree more.

With a fleet of 1,000+ A330's in service as of sometime next year, the business case for retrofittable sharklets in particular should be quite compelling.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:05 pm

It checked my model for the 333 on the Dec 2011 ACAP, it tracked close to it's 233t MTOW (175t MZFW, 130t OEW) Payload-Range chart, I then adjusted it to be within 100nm on all points. The OEW of 130t for the chart is really strange as for instance TK list them as 127t DOW for a 289 seat variant. Anyway it means all my aero and engine contants were tuned to be pretty close.

Then I put in the new MTOW, fuel capability and then adjusted the OEW until I had 6100nm spec range, here is the payload-range chart then for this new variant. I also put in the chart for the ACAP A332 variant with 233t MTOW (MZFW 170, OEW 120,5), all use T700 engines:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRchart333332ACAP2011-01.jpg

As can be seen the new 330 comes really close in range for a similar payload, the range fitted with a 126,5t OEW, I have left the MZFW at 175t, dunno it this is the value A leaves it at but would assume so.
Non French in France
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:25 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 15):
Does that mean that the current A333s are flying around wasted weight having an empty tank they cannot use?

Yes as the space is currently not usable, but the structures are still there.

You always need a center wingbox, this is where you attach the wings (and not in the side-of-body as the US expression leads you to believe, the center wingbox interfaces the fuselage not the wings ). For short or medium haul you don't convert this part of the wing to fuel tank if you don't need it as it costs you max wingbending moment increase ie thicker wingskins etc. Until the 333 hit more then 10 hours endurance the wingtanks were fine, now you need a couple of hours more sometimes, so add it but it will cost you a couple of tons in OEW and thus max payload for shorts legs (given that A leaves the MZFW at 175t).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
So, about 9,432 US gallons more fuel to go another 500 nm? That is about 64,140 lbs, which is 29.2 tonnes. Something just isn't adding up here. How do you squeeze 29 tonnes (of fuel) into a gross weight increase of only 4 tonnes over the current airplane? Something is being left behind, either pax or cargo, or both. Also 64000 lbs of fuel is about 3.5 hours flying time for an A-333, so why is it only going another 500 nm (about 1 hour and 15-20 minutes flying time)?

This shows you have never made a weight calculation for an airplane, you can take a Cessna 152 or a 333 or a 777 and they all are the same as they seldom are fuel limited (the 333 and 77W comes to mind but not many more), you trade payload vs fuel ie range or really hours in the air. The problem for the 333 was that you needed a couple of hours more and then the easiest added tankage was the already certified tank from the 332 and 343, the fact that you need some 10t and that it can hold up to 33t is as it always is. Load some 300 pax and you have a 12 hour frame, load 200 and you can stay 14 hours in the air (in real life about an hours gets translated back to meals and other stuff, once again this trade of fuel-flight time vs stuff that weighs ).

[Edited 2012-11-30 15:34:02]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Topic Author
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:22 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 84):

There is another thread running about HA increasing flights to Australia, a thought occurs that with a 242t MTOW A330-200 HA could fly a reasonable payload to Europe, any chance that you could knock up a payload - range chart for a 242t A330-200..
BV
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:19 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 85):
it will cost you a couple of tons in OEW

So - OEW increases 2t and MTOW increases 2t from 240 to 242.

The gain is in the flexibility created by the potential to carry more fuel at the expense of pax / freight. I.e. positioning for longer range. This would work well in a fleet mainly deployed on regional work with a minority of longer range needs, because all requirements would be met by a single aircraft type instead of either "abusing" a long range type for the regional work or needing two types. Think MH, TG....
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:05 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 86):
could knock up a payload - range chart for a 242t A330-200..

Here it is, the chart compares the 330-200 (pink and red curve) and the -300 (blue curves) before and after the upgrade (click on the chart to see better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR332333233tOEMvsmodel242tversions.jpg

The arrows are for those that are not that used to read such charts, the indicate where an airline would use the frames depending on loadfactor and how much empty cargo slots and seats they leave when they want to fly longer. Add some 3-5t to the payload (take 0.1t per pax) to cater for a real cabin, catering and some tare for the baggage containers. The width of the arrows shows the variation one would typically see. Others like Zeke, Pihero etc can tell more about real life weight situations and what range you have in practice, these are the showroom values.

[Edited 2012-12-01 08:09:33]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22385
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:13 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 28):
It would be a lot more than just turning on a switch. The -300 cockpit would need some upgrades (eg adding overhead switches for the centre fuel pumps), the flight warning computers would need to be upgraded, upgrades to the fuel quantity computers, FMEGC, fuel inerting system (and somewhere to refil it from), installation of sensors and pumps in the tanks, plumbing, and possibly even fuel jettison.

Nothing insurmountable, however it is not an overnight job. Probably could be done during one of the bigger regular checks. The current aircraft performance wise is good for over 250t.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
MO, is that many of these MTOW boosts are retrofittable to older frames also on lease.

The article in the thread starter mentions these things will be made available with new builds starting in 2015.

It'll be interesting to see if/when retrofit kits are available for earlier builds.
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
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:19 pm

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 5):
the A330 is my favourite plane!

   My fav Long Haul a/c is the -200 variant but I can't wait for the 359-R.   
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:22 pm

There is an article about the upgrade on AW now as well (sorry if it was already posted, couldn't find it):

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....d_11_30_2012_p01-01-522531.xml&p=2

It is interesting as it dives into what is done to get to these weights, mostly software changes in the FBW system. Seems A got an even better understanding of the flight loads when they worked and tested for the A332F, this meant by controlling surfaces like ailerons both sides a bit up or down you can change the span load and this alleviate wing bending moment. Program it into the FBW computers and load into new and retrofitted frames, voila cost effective new frames versions   .

This is the real benefit of a FBW frame vs hard wired. The new ones (787, 350) also have software controlled flaps that are designed to moved in micro-movements, this gives even higher adaptation possibilities. We can expect to see decades of such tuning when the 787 and 350 gets to these ages and time has come to wring out a bit more TOW. The 350 will have a small advantage in that it can also individually control inner and outer flaps, here is the software controlled gearbox that makes this possible:



With this little thing sitting on the torque shaft between inner and outer flap one can change the relative position of these two, ie inner can go down while outer stays put or vise versa (within limits). This will save 500kg in the wings straight out of the box (but lowering max wing-bending moment by shifting aero lift inwards at MTOW) but will for sure be further used in the future in the kind of exercises we see here.

So the pilots will no longer be bragging about what version of the frame they fly in the future but rather what software release they are on  Wow!  .
Non French in France
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18689
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:15 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 91):
We can expect to see decades of such tuning when the 787 and 350 gets to these ages and time has come to wring out a bit more TOW.

Agreed. This is the advantage of FBW. It is also far more economical to update an aircraft's software build than any hardware change.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 91):
So the pilots will no longer be bragging about what version of the frame they fly in the future but rather what software release they are on

   I can see it now: I'm flying the A350 with airframe 8.3, but for some reason we're stuck on engine 6.4...


I expect the 787 and A350 to see many aero and MTOW improvements quick out of the box. I also expect the engines will cut fuel burn with software, but first some hardware should be upgraded (e.g., the low turbines on both engines need work. Software only helps if the basic mechanics are done right).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:14 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 92):
I expect the 787 and A350 to see many aero and MTOW improvements quick out of the box. I also expect the engines will cut fuel burn with software, but first some hardware should be upgraded (e.g., the low turbines on both engines need work. Software only helps if the basic mechanics are done right).

Lightsaber
"Software only helps if the basic mechanics are done right"

I guess they should selected P&W instead of GE / RR engines if they wanted the basic mechcanics done Right!

Just messing you, Lightsaber  
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18689
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:04 am

Quoting mffoda (Reply 93):
I guess they should selected P&W instead of GE / RR engines if they wanted the basic mechcanics done Right!

Pratt has botched too many engines for anyone to trust them with an exclusive: PW4198, PW4173 (not PW4170A), and the infamous PW6000. Pratt had offered a GTF for the 787, but after their prior track record, who would trust them? Now the GP7200 helped resurect some of Pratt's reputation (a fan with better efficiency than GE could do at the time, a low turbine that excelled). Pratt must prove itself with the "PurePower" family. I think there is enough conservatism in those engines they will. It also helps that for the FIRST time I am aware of that RR and GE missed promise (on the 787). The last time I know RR missed promise fuel burn was *early* on the 757.

There is a reason I agree with this wikipedia history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211#RB211-524_series
"On 31 August 1978 Eastern Airlines and British Airways announced orders for the new 757, powered by the -535. Designated RB211-535C, the engine entered service in January 1983; this was the first time that Rolls-Royce had provided a launch engine on a Boeing aircraft.
However, in 1979 Pratt & Whitney launched its PW2000 engine, claiming 8% better fuel efficiency than the -535C for the PW2037 version. Boeing put Rolls-Royce under pressure to supply a more competitive engine for the 757, and using the more advanced -524 core as a basis, the company produced the 40,100 lbf (178,000 N) thrust RB211-535E4 which entered service in October 1984."


Note: I've seen actual numbers of the RB-211-535C vs. the PW2000 and it was 7% better fuel burn. However, that is *not* the case versus the -535E4. RR paid a pretty penny to come out ahead and that bought a tremendous amount of customer loyalty. Not to mention the 752 with the -535C would have been scrapped years ago, but the -535E4 ensures they stick around for TATL operations for a while longer. (The difference is a bit over 500nm in range due to the fuel burn delta.)

GE has botched maintenance and made small fuel burn misses. But nothing like the 4% of the PW4198 or the higher PW6000.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 93):
Just messing you, Lightsaber

I'll own up to Pratt's mistakes. The Geared TurboFan is a game changer. I was exposed to Pratt's 787 proposal. Pratt had a good GTF offering, but Boeing flat out refused to have the 787 the launch platform for a risk such as a high thrust GTF. RR and GE promised engines that just didn't make sense. It is only due to advances in turbine engine design I make the statements I did about the low turbines. To rephrase, at the 787 program launch, the low turbines I talk about today were not at a sufficient TRL (technology readiness level) to offer. But all three major engine vendors have been working on better low turbines knowing they were needed (and better was possible, the TRL level was high enough to know that for certain, it is the implementation that needed work).

Since this is an A333 high MTOW thread, I will point out that RR has the best hot/high performance. Pratt is lacking in thrust. GE has improved their engine enough that Pratt might drop to 3rd place on the A330.   RR will clearly be the winner at high weights. Where is PM? I didn't want to say it, but that detail is important.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:13 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 94):

Lightsaber... Wow...Wow, I almost spit out my beer (sorry... "Bier" for my German friends).

It was truly just poking some fun at a statement... I know I, and many others love your Critique's regarding A/C engines...
But you might be drinking to much coffee! Kidding...  


Regards my friend,
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:46 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 88):

Thanks for your charts. They're better than Coles notes for those of us too lazy to work it out ourselves.
What the...?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18689
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:18 am

Quoting mffoda (Reply 95):
But you might be drinking to much coffee!

Nyet! I have given up caffeine. For those that know me, it confuses them for I used to start my day with a POT of coffee!    "Hello, I'm lightsaber and I've gone 3 months without caffeine..."

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 96):

Quoting ferpe (Reply 88):

Thanks for your charts.

Ferpe, thank you. It helps one easily interpret range having a set of charts up for discussion in a thread.


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:44 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Thread starter):
The Geared TurboFan is a game changer. I was exposed to Pratt's 787 proposal. Pratt had a good GTF offering, but Boeing flat out refused to have the 787 the launch platform for a risk such as a high thrust GTF.

So for the 787 was too early, for the A340 sadly it is too late (as we have said in older threads).
So this bring the real question.
Which plane would get the first high(er) thrust GTF? A389?         
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank

Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:11 pm

Quoting Scipio (Reply 83):
I don't understand. As per FI, the 242t variant without sharklets will have a range of 6,100 NM.
Surely, range should go up with sharklets and an additional 8t of MTOW?
Can you please clarify?

The ranges quoted by the OEMs are for passengers only, if you want to carry a realistic payload with pax and cargo, you will need to trade range for payload. Looking at Fepe chart in reply 88, with a comfortable seating of 250-270 in 2/3 class config, it will allow for around 10t of additional cargo.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

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