WIederling wrote:

The MRTT doesn't really gain from MTOW increases beyond ~235t. ( OEW + 110t fuel + some ancillaries. ) apropos: would the 155kl/121t tankage of the A340-200 be available on the A330-200? then that limit would increase to 245t

The A340-213X's extra fuel came from three ACTs in the hold. I am guessing the A330-200 is not plumbed for ACTs and since A330MRTT's start as A330-200s, I would expect they are not plumbed for it, as well.

Stitch wrote:

WIederling wrote:

The MRTT doesn't really gain from MTOW increases beyond ~235t. ( OEW + 110t fuel + some ancillaries. ) apropos: would the 155kl/121t tankage of the A340-200 be available on the A330-200? then that limit would increase to 245t

The A340-213X's extra fuel came from three ACTs in the hold. I am guessing the A330-200 is not plumbed for ACTs and since A330MRTT's start as A330-200s, I would expect they are not plumbed for it, as well.

Other tankers use ATCs. As those ATC are used on the A340-200, it should not need a great feat of engineering to add ACTs including the needed plumbing to an A330MRTT.

WIederling wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

At some point the -300 gained momentum, overtook the -200 in sales & deliveries and never looked back.

there is this magic range bump. When the longer airframe surpasses that the shorter frame loses customer interest.
( same for A320 / A319 and for A321 / A320 long time ago the A319 presented half of the A320 family deliveries.)

This is less pronounced on the 737 side?

The driver behind the A319/73G becoming less popular wasn't range but rather weight, and a shift in focus to pack as many people in as possible to lower costs.

It is pretty pronounced on the 737 side too.

As crew banned the discussion about what MTOW the current MLG on the A330 would support on the A330neo production and delivery thread, I want to add one comment to the MLG discussion here.
Polot was talking that I was looking only at pavement pressure regarding the capabilities of the A330 MLG. If we look at the MLG of the A340-600, the outer MLG are identical to the A330 MLG. The A340-600 has a central MLG with the same bogie. So I divide the 380 t MTOW by three and multiply by two and get 253.33 t. So I assume the MLG of the A330 is good for 251 t.

mjoelnir wrote:

Stitch wrote:

WIederling wrote:

The MRTT doesn't really gain from MTOW increases beyond ~235t. ( OEW + 110t fuel + some ancillaries. ) apropos: would the 155kl/121t tankage of the A340-200 be available on the A330-200? then that limit would increase to 245t

The A340-213X's extra fuel came from three ACTs in the hold. I am guessing the A330-200 is not plumbed for ACTs and since A330MRTT's start as A330-200s, I would expect they are not plumbed for it, as well.

Unless there is a substantial MTOW increase, the HUGE wingbox tank of the A330-200/300/800/900 cannot be filled. So why are we talking ACTs? (Airbus cargo hold tanks... yea, they have a different name, but that is what they are in normal industry jargon).

But with the A332/A338 based tankers, there is less incentive at the current MTOW to add cargo tanks as the massive wingbox tank in commercial duty can only be half filled. Look at the A332 payload range chart!

For a good A330-200 payload range chart, all I could find what a chart embedded in a Leeham paid article, but google will show the chart.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... Q..i&w=683

Yes, notice for the MTOW illustrated, the 2nd change in slope of the payload range chart doesn't happen. The slope means that as every 100kg of payload is removed (one passenger and bags), 100kg of fuel is added. If you look at the 757 line on the chart, you will see shortly after a small payload reduction, the slope dives down more. That is because removing payload doesn't allow more fuel as the tanks are full ("Volume limited"). You will never have an A330NEO (800 or 900) in service (pax or freight) that can use even half of the installed wingbox fuel tank.

Without the A340s landing gear/landing gear bay there, the volume available for fuel is HUGE! The simple solution was just line the wingbox with material to contain the fuel for the A332 and that is all airbus did (besides add the plumbing, of course). Even if the A338 gets the full MTOW increase, the wingbox tank will still have volume left to fill. It makes the A330 an ideal and cheap to engineer tanker.

The A339 needs the MTOW increase to install and use that wingbox tank. Even then, we're only talking putting 1/3rd of the volume of the fuel into the tank as passenger & fuselage weight ensure a lot of nitrogen innerting gas gets flown...

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Stitch wrote:

The A340-213X's extra fuel came from three ACTs in the hold. I am guessing the A330-200 is not plumbed for ACTs and since A330MRTT's start as A330-200s, I would expect they are not plumbed for it, as well.

Unless there is a substantial MTOW increase, the HUGE wingbox tank of the A330-200/300/800/900 cannot be filled. So why are we talking ACTs? (Airbus cargo hold tanks... yea, they have a different name, but that is what they are in normal industry jargon).

But with the A332/A338 based tankers, there is less incentive at the current MTOW to add cargo tanks as the massive wingbox tank in commercial duty can only be half filled. Look at the A332 payload range chart!
..............................
The A339 needs the MTOW increase to install and use that wingbox tank. Even then, we're only talking putting 1/3rd of the volume of the fuel into the tank as passenger & fuselage weight ensure a lot of nitrogen innerting gas gets flown...

That all is not contested.
... and IMU the center wingbox tankage was available for the A333 beginning with the 242t MTOW version.

now for the tanker ( 332(?8?) based ) : there is no payload beyond fuel in tanker use.
Thus MTOW beyond 235t doesn't increase max fuel ( 120t OEW + 110t fuel + crew bags < 235t) loadable.
Thus the question came up if the A340-200 set of 1..3ACT could boost loadable fuel on the MRTT tanker ( from further MTOW increases: 242t, ... 251t)

WIederling wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Unless there is a substantial MTOW increase, the HUGE wingbox tank of the A330-200/300/800/900 cannot be filled. So why are we talking ACTs? (Airbus cargo hold tanks... yea, they have a different name, but that is what they are in normal industry jargon).

But with the A332/A338 based tankers, there is less incentive at the current MTOW to add cargo tanks as the massive wingbox tank in commercial duty can only be half filled. Look at the A332 payload range chart!
..............................
The A339 needs the MTOW increase to install and use that wingbox tank. Even then, we're only talking putting 1/3rd of the volume of the fuel into the tank as passenger & fuselage weight ensure a lot of nitrogen innerting gas gets flown...

That all is not contested.
... and IMU the center wingbox tankage was available for the A333 beginning with the 242t MTOW version.

now for the tanker ( 332(?8?) based ) : there is no payload beyond fuel in tanker use.
Thus MTOW beyond 235t doesn't increase max fuel ( 120t OEW + 110t fuel + crew bags < 235t) loadable.
Thus the question came up if the A340-200 set of 1..3ACT could boost loadable fuel on the MRTT tanker ( from further MTOW increases: 242t, ... 251t)

If we look at the plain tanker use of the MRTT. The A330-800 will be heavier than the A330-200 due to the increased engine weight. So a A330-800MRTT would have to have a raised MTOW to compensate for the engines. But the difference between 235 and 251 t is 18 t quite a bit more than the difference in engine weight. The 235 t A330-200 tanker uses all the tank volume. The 251 t A330-800 tanker would be volume limited without an ATC.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 235 t A330-200 tanker uses all the tank volume.

probably with a bit to spare.
i.e. even if you NEO the MRTT all tankage can be used ( for flying, for offload.)

The 251 t A330-800 tanker would be volume limited without an ATC.

Bravo! you've got it!

WIederling wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The 235 t A330-200 tanker uses all the tank volume.

probably with a bit to spare.
i.e. even if you NEO the MRTT all tankage can be used ( for flying, for offload.)

The 251 t A330-800 tanker would be volume limited without an ATC.

Bravo! you've got it!

In the tanker role, no extra payload, the 235t A330MRTT uses all the tankage, all 110 t of it.

mjoelnir wrote:

WIederling wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Unless there is a substantial MTOW increase, the HUGE wingbox tank of the A330-200/300/800/900 cannot be filled. So why are we talking ACTs? (Airbus cargo hold tanks... yea, they have a different name, but that is what they are in normal industry jargon).

But with the A332/A338 based tankers, there is less incentive at the current MTOW to add cargo tanks as the massive wingbox tank in commercial duty can only be half filled. Look at the A332 payload range chart!
..............................
The A339 needs the MTOW increase to install and use that wingbox tank. Even then, we're only talking putting 1/3rd of the volume of the fuel into the tank as passenger & fuselage weight ensure a lot of nitrogen innerting gas gets flown...

That all is not contested.
... and IMU the center wingbox tankage was available for the A333 beginning with the 242t MTOW version.

now for the tanker ( 332(?8?) based ) : there is no payload beyond fuel in tanker use.
Thus MTOW beyond 235t doesn't increase max fuel ( 120t OEW + 110t fuel + crew bags < 235t) loadable.
Thus the question came up if the A340-200 set of 1..3ACT could boost loadable fuel on the MRTT tanker ( from further MTOW increases: 242t, ... 251t)

It is the 242 to 251t that matters. Because the center tank cannot use all the fuel loaded, it isn't worth loading until 4+ tons of fuel can be added.

If we look at the plain tanker use of the MRTT. The A330-800 will be heavier than the A330-200 due to the increased engine weight. So a A330-800MRTT would have to have a raised MTOW to compensate for the engines. But the difference between 235 and 251 t is 18 t quite a bit more than the difference in engine weight. The 235 t A330-200 tanker uses all the tank volume. The 251 t A330-800 tanker would be volume limited without an ATC.

OK, so I redid the calculation, so yes, you could fill 2 ACTs. With the NEO, unless empty weight is further reduced after including the weight of the tanker equipment (boom, pumps, accumulators as the water hammer is wicked due to the high fuel transfer rates, high flow nitrogen innerting equipment as the civil equipment isn't worth considering for tanker applications, and main deck cargo floor). So OK, I learned something, but it would have to be a very high MTOW (251 t or so). The weight of the 3rd ACT would result in little or no available added fuel for transfer.

Hmmm... I'm more excited for an A338F at 251t. The current A330F cannot really use the wingbox tank with typical cargo densities. An A338F with 251t MTOW Although this begs the question, is the moment arm to the tail enough for 251t? Also, what will the engine thrust be? The T7000 engine has room for growth, but I do not know the nacelle nor wing limits... More is better. In my opinion, A330F sales have been handicapped by being just shy of today's range needs. 72,000 lbf is marginal for 242t. The TEN is capable of 76,000lb of thrust. Now Pratt had promised 75,000 lb of thrust (74,600 IIRC, but I'm going from memory), so that capability might already be in the wing). A T7000 with a maximum cold day thrust of 74,600lb with the hot thrust derated from 76,000 would be about right for 251t MTOW...


Lightsaber

As I posted earlier on this thread, the T700 already is enough thrust for 251 tonnes.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 251 t A330-800 tanker would be volume limited without an ATC.

I am not aware of an ACT STC for the A330, however they are available for the A340 and A300/A310 which would not seem intellectually as being a difficult extension of prior art.

Without ACT the offload would be better due to the better aerodynamics and lower fuel burn, with ACT that would be increased further.

From the first flight event today:

@Airbus is set to systematically improve the MTOW of the A330neo. First upgraded aircraft will enter in service in mid 2020. #A330neoFF

https://twitter.com/airwayslive/status/ ... 8661029889

KarelXWB wrote:

From the first flight event today:

@Airbus is set to systematically improve the MTOW of the A330neo. First upgraded aircraft will enter in service in mid 2020. #A330neoFF

https://twitter.com/airwayslive/status/ ... 8661029889

Did they talked about numbers? Is it 251t or do we get 245/248t first?

Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier said Airbus had decided to improve the plane’s maximum take-off weight by around 4 percent to 251 tonnes so the A330neo can serve longer routes such as Kuala Lumpur to London.

More: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1CO0X9

flee wrote:

Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier said Airbus had decided to improve the plane’s maximum take-off weight by around 4 percent to 251 tonnes so the A330neo can serve longer routes such as Kuala Lumpur to London.

More: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1CO0X9

Thanks. Someone here calculated around 7050nm (+500) for 251t IIRC. Impressive.

Edit: it is 7250nm (+700) https://airwaysmag.com/industry/airbus- ... st-flight/

mat66 wrote:

flee wrote:

Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier said Airbus had decided to improve the plane’s maximum take-off weight by around 4 percent to 251 tonnes so the A330neo can serve longer routes such as Kuala Lumpur to London.

More: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1CO0X9

Thanks. Someone here calculated around 7050nm (+500) for 251t IIRC. Impressive.

Edit: it is 7250nm (+700) https://airwaysmag.com/industry/airbus- ... st-flight/

That is a low estimate. The MTOW difference would be 9 t. If that is all fuel it could mean a 1.5 hour flight extension. The A330-900 should reach 7,300 nm and the A330-800 nearly 8.200nm.

Edit: after your edit we are not that far apart.

I believe that the A330 (with centre tank activated) is weight limited rather than volume limited. So it would almost certainly mean that all that additional weight will enable more fuel to be tanked.

mjoelnir wrote:

mat66 wrote:

flee wrote:

Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier said Airbus had decided to improve the plane’s maximum take-off weight by around 4 percent to 251 tonnes so the A330neo can serve longer routes such as Kuala Lumpur to London.

More: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1CO0X9

Thanks. Someone here calculated around 7050nm (+500) for 251t IIRC. Impressive.

Edit: it is 7250nm (+700) https://airwaysmag.com/industry/airbus- ... st-flight/

That is a low estimate. The MTOW difference would be 9 t. If that is all fuel it could mean a 1.5 hour flight extension. The A330-900 should reach 7,300 nm and the A330-800 nearly 8.200nm.

But you have to carry those 9t of fuel around for hours...

mat66 wrote:

flee wrote:

Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier said Airbus had decided to improve the plane’s maximum take-off weight by around 4 percent to 251 tonnes so the A330neo can serve longer routes such as Kuala Lumpur to London.

So should we expect Air Asia and Malaysian to prefer this enhanced A330neo over A350s? (I know the 350 is a bit bigger)

JerseyFlyer wrote:

So should we expect Air Asia and Malaysian to prefer this enhanced A330neo over A350s? (I know the 350 is a bit bigger)

I doubt that Fabrice Bregier mentioning the 251t A330neo being capable of Kuala-Lumpur to London is a coincidence

mat66 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

mat66 wrote:

Thanks. Someone here calculated around 7050nm (+500) for 251t IIRC. Impressive.

Edit: it is 7250nm (+700) https://airwaysmag.com/industry/airbus- ... st-flight/

That is a low estimate. The MTOW difference would be 9 t. If that is all fuel it could mean a 1.5 hour flight extension. The A330-900 should reach 7,300 nm and the A330-800 nearly 8.200nm.

But you have to carry those 9t of fuel around for hours...

But average fuel burn is well below 6 t an hour.

mjoelnir wrote:

mat66 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

That is a low estimate. The MTOW difference would be 9 t. If that is all fuel it could mean a 1.5 hour flight extension. The A330-900 should reach 7,300 nm and the A330-800 nearly 8.200nm.

But you have to carry those 9t of fuel around for hours...

But average fuel burn is well below 6 t an hour.

Extra fuel burn for additional weight carried is approx. 25kg/ton/hr. So, if you load extra 9 tons of fuel, in 13 hours you will have burned an additional ~3 tons of fuel. So, after 13 hrs (~6500Nm) you are left with an extra of 6 tons. Good for another 500Nm of flight

thepinkmachine wrote:

Extra fuel burn for additional weight carried is approx. 25kg/ton/hr. So, if you load extra 9 tons of fuel, in 13 hours you will have burned an additional ~3 tons of fuel. So, after 13 hrs (~6500Nm) you are left with an extra of 6 tons. Good for another 500Nm of flight

I am not following your logic, you make use those 9t of extra fuel at the beginning of the flight, not at the end of it.

In order to calculate the extra range, we need fuel burn at MTOW.

sf260 wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

Extra fuel burn for additional weight carried is approx. 25kg/ton/hr. So, if you load extra 9 tons of fuel, in 13 hours you will have burned an additional ~3 tons of fuel. So, after 13 hrs (~6500Nm) you are left with an extra of 6 tons. Good for another 500Nm of flight

I am not following your logic, you make use those 9t of extra fuel at the beginning of the flight, not at the end of it.

In order to calculate the extra range, we need fuel burn at MTOW.

Yes, but he says fuel burn increases by 25kg/hr per additional ton carried (not sure where the number comes from though), which allows to take into account of the higher fuel burn early in the flight induced by the additional 9t of fuel onboard.

And then, his result is that, after 13hours of flight, 3t were consumed so, out of these 9t, 6t remain to give the aircraft some extra range. Makes sense to me.

Theseus wrote:

sf260 wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

Extra fuel burn for additional weight carried is approx. 25kg/ton/hr. So, if you load extra 9 tons of fuel, in 13 hours you will have burned an additional ~3 tons of fuel. So, after 13 hrs (~6500Nm) you are left with an extra of 6 tons. Good for another 500Nm of flight

I am not following your logic, you make use those 9t of extra fuel at the beginning of the flight, not at the end of it.

In order to calculate the extra range, we need fuel burn at MTOW.

Yes, but he says fuel burn increases by 25kg/hr per additional ton carried (not sure where the number comes from though), which allows to take into account of the higher fuel burn early in the flight induced by the additional 9t of fuel onboard.

And then, his result is that, after 13hours of flight, 3t were consumed so, out of these 9t, 6t remain to give the aircraft some extra range. Makes sense to me.

Yes, it make sense but after 13 hours flight plane is also about 70t lighter and not burn 6t/h anymore. Then extra 6t remain gives likely nearly 1,5h additional flight time.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Theseus wrote:

sf260 wrote:

I am not following your logic, you make use those 9t of extra fuel at the beginning of the flight, not at the end of it.

In order to calculate the extra range, we need fuel burn at MTOW.

Yes, but he says fuel burn increases by 25kg/hr per additional ton carried (not sure where the number comes from though), which allows to take into account of the higher fuel burn early in the flight induced by the additional 9t of fuel onboard.

And then, his result is that, after 13hours of flight, 3t were consumed so, out of these 9t, 6t remain to give the aircraft some extra range. Makes sense to me.

Yes, it make sense but after 13 hours flight plane is also about 70t lighter and not burn 6t/h anymore. Then extra 6t remain gives likely nearly 1,5h additional flight time.

Exactly. Last 6t should be good for 6-700nm. Leeham quotes 7000nm now and in their latest article compare it to the 789 with their real world model. Behind a pay wall, of course. Don‘t the articles get free after some days?

sf260 wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

Extra fuel burn for additional weight carried is approx. 25kg/ton/hr. So, if you load extra 9 tons of fuel, in 13 hours you will have burned an additional ~3 tons of fuel. So, after 13 hrs (~6500Nm) you are left with an extra of 6 tons. Good for another 500Nm of flight

I am not following your logic, you make use those 9t of extra fuel at the beginning of the flight, not at the end of it.

In order to calculate the extra range, we need fuel burn at MTOW.

Any added fuel you use is invariably burnt at the end of your voyage.
That means that extra fuel has to be carried to where you start to use it.
It is an exponential equation.

After some thinking you can indeed calculate the extra range in 2 ways. Either you calculate at the beginning of the flight, using fuel burn at start of cruise (having slightly less than 9t available). Alternatively, you can also use fuel burn at the end of cruise, and make a correction for carrying the fuel (=less fuel available at the end, around 6t remaining).

Using A330ceo figures:
Fuel burn at start of cruise: 7,1t/hr (242t). Hence, 9 tons / 7,2t/hr = 1,27hrs of extra flight time
Fuel burn at end of cruise: 4,7t/hr (160t). Fuel available corrected for "tankering" = 6 tons. Hence, 6t / 4,8t/hr = 1,28hr of extra flight time.

In both cases the extra flight time is just over 1,25hrs.

Now, we can correct it for the extra efficiency of the A330neo (12%), the extra flight time then becomes roughly 1,4hrs. At 470knots, this translates into an extra range of 660nm.

I think we can now assume that the extra range due to the 9t MTOW increase is around 600-700nm ESAD, or well over 500nm.

sf260 wrote:

After some thinking you can indeed calculate the extra range in 2 ways. Either you calculate at the beginning of the flight, using fuel burn at start of cruise (having slightly less than 9t available). Alternatively, you can also use fuel burn at the end of cruise, and make a correction for carrying the fuel (=less fuel available at the end, around 6t remaining).

Using A330ceo figures:
Fuel burn at start of cruise: 7,1t/hr (242t). Hence, 9 tons / 7,2t/hr = 1,27hrs of extra flight time
Fuel burn at end of cruise: 4,7t/hr (160t). Fuel available corrected for "tankering" = 6 tons. Hence, 6t / 4,8t/hr = 1,28hr of extra flight time.

In both cases the extra flight time is just over 1,25hrs.

Now, we can correct it for the extra efficiency of the A330neo (12%), the extra flight time then becomes roughly 1,4hrs. At 470knots, this translates into an extra range of 660nm.

I think we can now assume that the extra range due to the 9t MTOW increase is around 600-700nm ESAD, or well over 500nm.

This. If there were a star/heart function here, you'd get it. Tremendous calculations. Thank you very much.
As a complete amateur/aerospace fan I was stunned by the difference of 7.1t to 4.7t for first/last hour of flight.

If we now see the 251t A330-900NEO at 7.250nm, a A330-1000 simple stretch would have had quite decent range and very competitive CASM.

See thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1356889&start=100