
I'm aware that the 242T A333HGW comes with the center tank activated, but do any other weight variants above 238T (e.g. 240T) have that as well?
lightsaber wrote:I wasn't able to find out if lower MTOW versions have the option. I do know the center tank has a large mass of unusable fuel (as with all fuel tanks,), so it is only worth activating with a substantial fuel load.
I'm amazed at the range changes on the A330.
3,900 nm for circa 1994
The 242 was 6,200nm
Then 245 ton
Soon 250 ton NEO with 7,000+nm range.
All I found is the 242T was the first to offer activate. Since the tank only adds 500nm range, I see no value at lower MTOW.
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/airbus-p ... a330-range
mjoelnir wrote:lightsaber wrote:I wasn't able to find out if lower MTOW versions have the option. I do know the center tank has a large mass of unusable fuel (as with all fuel tanks,), so it is only worth activating with a substantial fuel load.
I'm amazed at the range changes on the A330.
3,900 nm for circa 1994
The 242 was 6,200nm
Then 245 ton
Soon 250 ton NEO with 7,000+nm range.
All I found is the 242T was the first to offer activate. Since the tank only adds 500nm range, I see no value at lower MTOW.
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/airbus-p ... a330-range
Since the tank only adds 500nm range, ? what do you want to say?
The center tank adds 22,415 kg or 42,800 l of fuel.
mjoelnir wrote:Since the tank only adds 500nm range, ? what do you want to say?
The center tank adds 22,415 kg or 42,800 l of fuel.
Varsity1 wrote:I just wonder why it took airbus so long to build the A330-300 out to what it is now. It would have been a very formidable competitor to the 777-200ER in it's day. The CF-6 has always existed...
WayexTDI wrote:mjoelnir wrote:lightsaber wrote:I wasn't able to find out if lower MTOW versions have the option. I do know the center tank has a large mass of unusable fuel (as with all fuel tanks,), so it is only worth activating with a substantial fuel load.
I'm amazed at the range changes on the A330.
3,900 nm for circa 1994
The 242 was 6,200nm
Then 245 ton
Soon 250 ton NEO with 7,000+nm range.
All I found is the 242T was the first to offer activate. Since the tank only adds 500nm range, I see no value at lower MTOW.
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/airbus-p ... a330-range
Since the tank only adds 500nm range, ? what do you want to say?
The center tank adds 22,415 kg or 42,800 l of fuel.
Something doesn't make add up in your comment:
- 42,800 liters of Jet A would be 33,598 kg (density of 0.785);
- the A330 has a usable fuel capacity of 139,090 liters; so, the center tank would add 30%, or be 30%, of the total fuel capacity; that's a lot.
lightsaber wrote:Since the tank only adds 500nm range, I see no value at lower MTOW.
LH707330 wrote:Varsity1 wrote:I just wonder why it took airbus so long to build the A330-300 out to what it is now. It would have been a very formidable competitor to the 777-200ER in it's day. The CF-6 has always existed...
Because they were trying to sell more A340-300s at the time. Their problem was that Snecma was not playing ball on PIPs and pricing in the late 90s, while the 777 had a 3-OEM bloodbath going on, so Airbus lost a number of campaigns. That's when they should have played hardball with Snecma and threatened a 242T 333 while cutting bait on the 343.
Varsity1 wrote:LH707330 wrote:Varsity1 wrote:I just wonder why it took airbus so long to build the A330-300 out to what it is now. It would have been a very formidable competitor to the 777-200ER in it's day. The CF-6 has always existed...
Because they were trying to sell more A340-300s at the time. Their problem was that Snecma was not playing ball on PIPs and pricing in the late 90s, while the 777 had a 3-OEM bloodbath going on, so Airbus lost a number of campaigns. That's when they should have played hardball with Snecma and threatened a 242T 333 while cutting bait on the 343.
Even the Pratt 4000 would have been a perfect fit in the late 80's.
I can't help but think that was one of airbus's biggest unseen whiffs of all time. Especially with the higher weights designed in to the frame architecture for the A340.
250t PW4000 powered A330-300 in 1995~ would have been a monster.
LH707330 wrote:Varsity1 wrote:LH707330 wrote:Because they were trying to sell more A340-300s at the time. Their problem was that Snecma was not playing ball on PIPs and pricing in the late 90s, while the 777 had a 3-OEM bloodbath going on, so Airbus lost a number of campaigns. That's when they should have played hardball with Snecma and threatened a 242T 333 while cutting bait on the 343.
Even the Pratt 4000 would have been a perfect fit in the late 80's.
I can't help but think that was one of airbus's biggest unseen whiffs of all time. Especially with the higher weights designed in to the frame architecture for the A340.
250t PW4000 powered A330-300 in 1995~ would have been a monster.
I think the 4168 would have been the worst option, as it had the lowest thrust, which is why most recent sales have gone to RR and to a lesser degree GE. From what I've read, the 333 has a ~5-6% fuel burn improvement over the 343, largely due to the engine tech being half a generation better, which even at those higher weights would be traded against 25 tons of MTOW and the corresponding payload/range advantage of the 343. Back then, fuel was cheaper, so the P/R benefit probably outweighed a fuel burn saving. I'd be curious to know how many of the 777-200ER sales were for P/R versus engine competition, and to what extent an earlier 250t A333 with cheaper engines would have poached orders that the 343 didn't get because of Snecma's troubles. Everyone in Boeing's focus group would probably still have gone 777, plus AA/DL/CO due to the handshake agreement, so maybe AF, KL, and a few others.
Varsity1 wrote:LH707330 wrote:Varsity1 wrote:
Even the Pratt 4000 would have been a perfect fit in the late 80's.
I can't help but think that was one of airbus's biggest unseen whiffs of all time. Especially with the higher weights designed in to the frame architecture for the A340.
250t PW4000 powered A330-300 in 1995~ would have been a monster.
I think the 4168 would have been the worst option, as it had the lowest thrust, which is why most recent sales have gone to RR and to a lesser degree GE. From what I've read, the 333 has a ~5-6% fuel burn improvement over the 343, largely due to the engine tech being half a generation better, which even at those higher weights would be traded against 25 tons of MTOW and the corresponding payload/range advantage of the 343. Back then, fuel was cheaper, so the P/R benefit probably outweighed a fuel burn saving. I'd be curious to know how many of the 777-200ER sales were for P/R versus engine competition, and to what extent an earlier 250t A333 with cheaper engines would have poached orders that the 343 didn't get because of Snecma's troubles. Everyone in Boeing's focus group would probably still have gone 777, plus AA/DL/CO due to the handshake agreement, so maybe AF, KL, and a few others.
The A330 struggled with US carriers because it couldn't do TPAC, while the MD-11, 777 and even 767 could. The low weights of the initial versions made them an east coast-western europe shuttle.
strfyr51 wrote:Somehow Airbus didn't immediately get with ETOPS
LAX772LR wrote:Airbus however had a stake in fighting the advent of extended ETOPS, because its premier longhaul product lost its competitive edge, the further ETOPS was pushed.
WIederling wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Airbus however had a stake in fighting the advent of extended ETOPS, because its premier longhaul product lost its competitive edge, the further ETOPS was pushed.
I doubt that FAA kind of ETOPS would have been extended for a non US forerunner product.
LAX772LR wrote:WIederling wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Airbus however had a stake in fighting the advent of extended ETOPS, because its premier longhaul product lost its competitive edge, the further ETOPS was pushed.
I doubt that FAA kind of ETOPS would have been extended for a non US forerunner product.
Even if that was the case, which I'm not sure I agree with, it would've immediately hit a brick wall of politics.... what good would having 1sided ETOPS be, if Europe didn't permit entry to such ops?
Which they would've almost certainly done, under the guise of "safety," in response to any US refusal to extend to an otherwise approvable European product.
WIederling wrote:LAX772LR wrote:WIederling wrote:I doubt that FAA kind of ETOPS would have been extended for a non US forerunner product.
Even if that was the case, which I'm not sure I agree with, it would've immediately hit a brick wall of politics.... what good would having 1sided ETOPS be, if Europe didn't permit entry to such ops?
Which they would've almost certainly done, under the guise of "safety," in response to any US refusal to extend to an otherwise approvable European product.
It would not have had much say in it, would it?
LAX772LR wrote:Perhaps I'm not clear on what you were initially attempting to state, but seems you're suggesting that the US would've employed an arbitrary means to deny European ETOPS ops into the USA back in early days; I'm simply saying that any such activity would be met with similar reciprocation.
WIederling wrote:Remember times when everybody else was flying 90min ICAO and US airlines were stuck with 60min FAA? FAA ETOPS was apparently created to accomodate Boeing with its upcoming 767 without having foreign competition in the boat from day one. The "furthering the national aero industry" task is a strong motivator for FAA activity.