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?

It doesn't come with the centre tank activated. It comes with the option to activate the centre tank which most airlines didn't opt for, and wasn't and option on previous weight variants.

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

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:

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.

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.

With the center tank you can take a lot of fuel, but you don't have the rake-off weight available to use it.

An empty 333 with center fuel tank can fly a lot further than one without, but at normal payload it's "only" 500nm.

The more the MTOW is increased, the more the center tank can be used.

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...

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.

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.

the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank It was activated when US airlines got the Idea from TWA to fly the airplane ETOPS. I think it woujld take a service bulletin to do so with an adjustment in inspection criteria for the added weight.

lightsaber wrote:

Since the tank only adds 500nm range, I see no value at lower MTOW.

it is 109t - 76t ~= 33t more fuel ( or 42,000l in the center tank.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Per the Airbus ACAP, center tank activation is optional on the 80-series Weight Variants of the A330-300 (which offer MTOWs between 238,000 and 242,000kg) and all Weight Variants of the A330-900.

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.

The A330 and the A340 were for 2 different applications. The A330 was meant for Regional operations while the A340 was meant for intercontinental operations.
Somehow Airbus didn't immediately get with ETOPS and that's a shame because it put them behind the 8 ball with not only the B767 but the B777 as well.

strfyr51 wrote:

Somehow Airbus didn't immediately get with ETOPS

Not exactly accurate, as Airbus had been on with ETOPS since the '80s with the A300/A310, just like Boeing with the 767.

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.

Remember for example that it was Airbus, not Virgin, who initially launched the ridiculous "4Engines4Longhaul" propaganda campaign.
(Though as a sidenote: tough to believe it's been 17yrs since that started. I remember when that was the great A.net debate.)

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.
Airbus needed the 4holers just to push Boeing to push FAA for ETOPS extension.

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.

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.

It would not have had much say in it, would it?
( IMU ETOPS is controlled by the aircraft registration country. And US FAA had a lot of push on other cert domains too.)

SAA opted for the 242t A333 WITHOUT the CT. I’m sure they are now regretting it. Fuel issues on ACC-IAD sector where performance allows for the full 242t RTOW.

SAA opted for the 242t A333 WITHOUT the CT. I’m sure they are now regretting it. Fuel issues on ACC-IAD sector where performance allows for the full 242t RTOW.

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?

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.

Clarify?

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.

US market.
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.

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.

When Boeing first approached the FAA in 1980 about ETOPS, the FAA Director at the time ( Lyn Helms) was vehemently opposed to the idea - he thought the current 60-minute rule was too lenient and refused to entertain the idea of anything longer. By 1982, the ICAO starting a study group on ETOPS forced the FAA's hand and they started to work with airlines, the ICAO and the airframe and engine OEMs to collect data on IFSDs to see if longer than 60 minute diversion times could be safely considered.

El Al was the first airline to operate the 767 TATL, but under 60 minute rules. Air Canada was granted a 75 minute exemption in late 1983 and TWA received the same in 1984 when the new FAA director (Donald Engen) took over. In 1985, the FAA allowed ETOPS-120 on the 767-200ER, but only after they had required additional safety systems be installed and after having monitored the PW engines had logged 250,000 hours with only a handful of IFSDs during that time.