Could an A330-200 operate between LHR and SYD non stop.
I know previously the a330 operated from toulouse to melbourne fror delvery with 20pax, is 20 the max or could it fly with more?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
Yes, but not profitably. The A332 has the same fuel tank volume as the A342 and 343, but because it's got a much lower MTOW, you fill the tanks and then there's not much weight left to put revenue payload in.
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
QF used to operate the A332 from the west coast via AKL to Australia. I would not call that ultra long haul.
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
Let's put some numbers here:
OEW: 120t
MTOW: 234t (the version of the -200 back in 2003 when the TLS-MEL flight took place, current MTOW is at 242t and the -800NEO would go up to 251t)
Max fuel: 109t.
Therefore with full tanks, there is still 5 tons left for payload, so it would be roughly 45-50 pax.
I cannot guarantee that this 20h flight would have been possible with 50 instead of 20 pax, as their added weight slightly increases fuel consumption. In any case, these kind of missions are WAY beyond the economically reasonable mission scope for this aircraft.
OEW: 120t
MTOW: 234t (the version of the -200 back in 2003 when the TLS-MEL flight took place, current MTOW is at 242t and the -800NEO would go up to 251t)
Max fuel: 109t.
Therefore with full tanks, there is still 5 tons left for payload, so it would be roughly 45-50 pax.
I cannot guarantee that this 20h flight would have been possible with 50 instead of 20 pax, as their added weight slightly increases fuel consumption. In any case, these kind of missions are WAY beyond the economically reasonable mission scope for this aircraft.
-
- Pellegrine
- Posts: 2883
- Joined:
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
zeke wrote:QF used to operate the A332 from the west coast via AKL to Australia. I would not call that ultra long haul.
Qantas also flew A332 AKL-LAX.
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
So pretty much a flying gas tank then? Does that 5 tons count both passengers and their baggage?
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
bhill wrote:So pretty much a flying gas tank then? Does that 5 tons count both passengers and their baggage?
@100kg per person and baggage is pretty standard, so 50 pax, 5000kg, 50 metric tons, I think airbus actually use 90 or 95kg .
-
- WIederling
- Posts: 10043
- Joined:
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
trex8 wrote:bhill wrote:So pretty much a flying gas tank then? Does that 5 tons count both passengers and their baggage?
@100kg per person and baggage is pretty standard, so 50 pax, 5000kg, 50 metric tons, I think airbus actually use 90 or 95kg .
@100kg per person and baggage is pretty standard, so 50 pax, 5000kg, 5 metric tons, I think airbus actually use 90 or 95kg
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
WIederling wrote:trex8 wrote:bhill wrote:So pretty much a flying gas tank then? Does that 5 tons count both passengers and their baggage?
@100kg per person and baggage is pretty standard, so 50 pax, 5000kg, 50 metric tons, I think airbus actually use 90 or 95kg .
@100kg per person and baggage is pretty standard, so 50 pax, 5000kg, 5 metric tons, I think airbus actually use 90 or 95kg
well I was almost within an order of magnitude!!!
Its a US metric ton! Historical note, the reason US volumes are smaller than British imperial ones is because when those ships used to sail from mother England to the 13 colonies the captains routinely stole a little out of each barrel!
But this in 5 gallons!! Really!! These goods dont travel well if they totally fill the container!
-
- WIederling
- Posts: 10043
- Joined:
Re: A330-200 Ultra Long Haul
trex8 wrote:Historical note, the reason US volumes are smaller than British imperial ones is because when those ships used to sail from mother England to the 13 colonies the captains routinely stole a little out of each barrel!
fun:
my understanding was that the Brit 112 lbs "cwt" was the real "CWT/hundredweight" with some nefarious tax added.
( with quite a lot of that UK/US disparity stuff you can see when the "export" happened.)
truth is slightly different, apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: aballack50, TangoandCash and 37 guests