It is a Rumour network after all....

[cxorcist]

"There will be no changes to the center wing box, but the wing will be extended, twisted and strengthened to handle the 5 tons of additional weight."

Airbus: More Than 1,000 Orders Coming For A330neo | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

"There are also some penalties to be counteracted: 1% because of increased drag (the fan diameter is increased to 112 from 97 in.) and 2% because of additional weight."

[Frogman1484]

Hey ...who gives a **** about all of this!
Cx is not going to buy the 787 as it will not introduce another aircraft type in its fleet...now stop trying to prove you have the biggest dick...and no life beyond stating facts that no one cares about.

[cxorcist]

Froggy,

You should know, as French polling has shown, that Frogs have the biggest d!cks. So that's really not the issue. The issue is outright deception by Airbus marketing. It's nothing new but wrong nonetheless.

PS - I'll be LMAO if CX orders the longest Tupperliner.

[goathead]

Thread drift

How are they going to crew all these new jets you lot are talking about ? Only via cadets / icadets ? , lowering there upgrade std's? ( clearly in evidence with current crop of S/O's ) who wants to come here anymore ? Im interested to know how you lot think all these new shiny jets are going to be crewed
Standards are clearly going down hill these days , self induced by a sycophantic mgmt

[Frogman1484]

cxorcist, does it really matter?

You or I do not have a say in what they order or not. We don't even have a say on what type we fly. I also think that Cx has missed the boat big time on the A380 and possibly on the 747-8. At the end of the day it is not my responsibility to point out the obvious mistakes they make.

I also know that the 787 is a very nice piece of equipment , but then the A350 , 777 and the A330 (Neo or not) are also just as good, I would also love to fly the A380 or 747-8.
The bottom line is that they are not going to order them for me or you. They do not want to introduce another fleet type in to the business. So with that idea in mind, I can see them ordering more new 777's and most probably more A330-900.

So at the end of the day it does not matter what the new weight is or what each engine' s wet weight is and if it's winglet extensions are connected with superglue or speed tape.

[broadband circuit]

Good question goathead.

How exactly do they plan to crew these aircraft??? Even if they are flooded with applicants (which I doubt for C scale), I seriously doubt they can train at the required rate.

[crwkunt roll]

Could we afford all the A380 downtime while all the doors are replaced?
Surely we've missed no boat......

[cxorcist]

"That combination will make the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 700. Even with that additional weight, and additional drag from the larger fan, the Trent 7000 delivers 11% better fuel burn on wing than the Trent 700."

Swh,

Would you like some humble pie? Or does this guy not know what he talking about either? So, it's looking like over 3 tonnes additional engine weight plus the 3 meter wing extensions plus wing strengthening weight. So, as I believe I stated earlier, weight neutral is BS. You're looking at about 5T extra OEW. It's just a fact. It'll still be a good airplane, but this can't bode well for short haul missions. If Airbus could have taken 5T out of the A330CEO, don't you think they would have done so already?

http://airinsight.com/2014/07/23/new.../#.U9AS2mS9Kc0

[swh]

Originally Posted by redneck

Would you like some humble pie?

Not really, you are so dishonest. The actual quote is
"the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 7000", not what you posted "the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 700". I doubt Mr Goodhead said that.

We have already covered the basic and dry engine mass differences, it is the mass of the overall pod that is important. The certification documents have covered that. There will be less than 1% difference in mass between the Trent 1000-TEN on the 787-10 and the Trent 7000. The changes are in the front bearing, gearbox bleed system, and FADEC.

FARNBOROUGH: Trent 7000 weight to be close to 1000's - 7/14/2014 - Flight Global

The only interesting part of that article was the table, as the Trent 700 datum is the 772 EP (Enhanced Performance), which is a couple of percent more efficient than the engine in use with CX.

Originally Posted by redneck

So, it's looking like over 3 tonnes additional engine weight

Originally Posted by redneck

wing strengthening weight

The activation of the centre wing tank and wing strengthening is already part of the 242t MTOW A330-300, that is the datum aircraft Airbus has used for the A330-800/900. The 242t weight variant (which is the 82nd weight variant for the A330) was announced in 2012, deliveries start next year. It is not the aircraft CX has, the new A330-300s CX are getting at 235t MTOW, they are known as weight variation 55.

Airbus offers new 242 tonne A330 takeoff-weight capability to extend market coverage *| Airbus Press release

Originally Posted by redneck

So, as I believe I stated earlier, weight neutral is BS.

That statement came from Airbus looking at the entire upgrade, not me.

“We’re trying to head back to an almost neutral [weight] position,” said Airbus executive vice-president for programmes Tom Williams during the Farnborough air show.

FARNBOROUGH: Airbus outlines A330neo engineering demands - 7/16/2014 - Flight Global

[cxorcist]

swh,

Back to name calling... Nice!!!

The whole article is about the difference between the 700 and the 7000, not the 7000 and the 7000???

You are the one who is dishonest. They are talking about increased weight. 3500 pounds is almost 1.59 tonnes. Assuming there are in fact 2 engines, that's over 3 tonnes. The wing is not just swapping winglets for the new style A350 winglets. They are extending the wing over 3 meters. Are you telling me that does not gain weight? Are you also telling me that a heavier wing with heavier engines and wingtip does not require additional strengthening. Of course it does. Whether this is part of an ongoing "improvement" process or not is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that the OEW is climbing from just under 125T to nearly 130T. While that may be a good tradeoff for long haul, it is most assuredly bad for shorthaul. It is far more (approximately 10T) than the similar sized 787 or A350.

[cxorcist]

Here's the whole paragraph. It's pretty obvious that the article is comparing the Trent 7000 to the Trent 700. Or am I smoking something?

"The fan hub for the Trent 7000 is smaller than the hub for the Trent 700, enabling additional improvement in the bypass ratio without having to further increase fan size. The smaller hub saves more than an inch in fan diameter, and associated additional weight. Of course, with a fan that is 15% larger, the low pressure turbine requires two more stages to move the additional size. That combination will make the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 7000. Even with that additional weight, and additional drag from the larger fan, the Trent 7000 delivers 11% better fuel burn on wing than the Trent 700."

For those interested, this blog is written by an ex-Airbus engineer and invokes some informative comments by readers.

The A330neo is a good aircraft | Vero Venia

[swh]

Originally Posted by That Americans can't handle the metric system?

They are talking about increased weight.

The person who has knowledge of the program, i.e. Tom Williams has said next to no change. If you want to believe a blog over him, that is your prerogative. Having just rolled out the A320neo (with more than 4dm increase in fan diameter), I think they have the best handle on what it takes.

Originally Posted by That Americans can't handle the metric system?

Assuming there are in fact 2 engines

Yes plural, not singular.

Originally Posted by That Americans can't handle the metric system?

Here's the whole paragraph. It's pretty obvious that the article is comparing the Trent 7000 to the Trent 700. Or am I smoking something?

An engine also needs a nacelle, intake, cowl doors, CNA and thrust reverser. You have the actual certified numbers from EASA provided to you. If you also want to believe a blog or Wikipedia over EASA, that is your prerogative.

[Steve the Pirate]

Was it Colonel Mustard, in the Billiard Room with the dagger?

STP

[White None]

STP

Get off the thread!! This is for AVNerds who really give a crap about all these really impressive numbers. It's not a replacement for anything missing, they have full lives but time to woo chicks with stats on the side.

Cease and Desist - (Prof Plum I reckon anyway)

[cxorcist]

swh,

If you want to believe an Airbus sales pitch over the perfectly reasonable assumption that larger fans and bigger wings weigh more, then that's your prerogative.

Hiding the weight gain within a current MTOW increase does not change the fact that the OEW is going up. As it does, the aircraft loses some of its effectiveness on short range missions, and I seriously doubt CX will be an A330NEO buyer. Notice how, according to you, they have opted to take the 235T version thus far. Why do you suppose that is? You think CX wants a reengined, 25 year old plane carrying fewer pax, less cargo, and weighing ~10T more than the alternative? OK, sure. That makes perfect sense.

Note that I am not saying the A330NEO won't be a good aircraft, it will. Airbus is taking its most successful widebody and improving it. It will be a very efficient aircraft. It just cannot be as efficient as aircraft with newer technology weighing 10T less (787 and A350). That's it and that's all.

A330NEO is a knee jerk relation to a failed A350 strategy (A358 is dead)

Airbus A350-800 dealt another setback | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

designed to preserve market share from Boeing's two pronged attack with the 787 and 777X. It crowds the offerings of aircraft its size and is sure to put pricing pressure on both A350 and 787. Why else would Airbus announce the NEO now in 2014 when this is essentially an A350M1 offering circa 2006? The 787 program is finally coming to fruition with a successful -9 launch and a simple stretch for the -10.

Boeing beavers away on 787-10 Dreamliner - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

If I were Airbus, I'd be crapping my shorts too. A 25 year old design to compete on the small end (787-8/-9) and nothing up top to compete with the 777-9.

http://airchive.com/blog/wp-content/...ng-graphic.jpg

Here is an interesting comment wrt the purchase pricing for these NEOs...

BRIEF-Delta comments on outlook, possible aircraft buy

"High 70s, low 80s." What!?! Are we shopping on a used car lot?

[Captain Dart]

http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbo...ter-wheel.html

[cxorcist]

Another good article:

Airbus A330-800 and -900neo, first analysis, part 3: performance | Leeham News and Comment

As I wrote before, the short range (2-3 hour) missions look to be the problem for NEO.

"Perhaps more interesting at this first analysis is the decline in fuel efficiency gain when shorter ranges are flown. We have a decline of 20%-30% from 4,000nm to 1,000nm. We can thereby conclude that Kiran Rao, Airbus EVP of Strategy and Marketing, meant something else with the quote “for 2-3 hour missions, the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” (from this discussion with Aviation Week)."

So the sweet spot is medium range (aprroximately 4000nm or 8-9 hours. This is where NEO is most competitive with 787.

Long range? Forget about it... It's not an apples to apples comparison. The 787-8/9 are ultra long haul aircraft. The A330NEO is not. It's long haul at best. That's why the 787-10 is a more natural competitor. As a simple stretch which exchanges range for payload, it's missions are much more closely aligned with the A330NEO. The A359R is also part of the discussion, but unless -10 is eight across only I think it has a hard time competing against a lighter aircraft.

[swh]

Originally Posted by the redneck that does not stop

If you want to believe an Airbus sales pitch over the perfectly reasonable assumption that larger fans and bigger wings weigh more, then that's your prerogative.

Tom Williams is a engineer and the senior manager in charge of production at Airbus, not sales. He has been responsible for the A350 and A320neo production. He has a lot of credibility as he has been able to deliver his projects.

Originally Posted by the redneck that does not stop

Notice how, according to you, they have opted to take the 235T version thus far.

Since the start of 2012 all A330s delivered to CX were capable of 235t. The CX fleet has 9 different MTOWs, and KA an additional one at 205t.

Originally Posted by the redneck that does not stop

You think CX wants a reengined, 25 year old plane carrying fewer pax, less cargo, and weighing ~10T more than the alternative?

Well you are very good at making things up, for example the A330-200 lifts 11,000 lb more payload than the 787-8.

Originally Posted by the redneck that does not stop

A330NEO is a knee jerk relation to a failed A350 strategy (A358 is dead)

That is exactly what I would expect from the Seattle Times or Chicago Tribune. Give the subscribers what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by the redneck that does not stop

Why else would Airbus announce the NEO now in 2014 when this is essentially an A350M1 offering circa 2006?

Airbus did not need to, it had no competition in the market. They outsold and out delivered the 787 in the past 6 years while Boeing failed to deliver the 787. The 787-9 was 4 years late to Air New Zealand.

The same could be said for Boeing with the 777X. The engine technology has been around to provide more efficiency, they did not need to invest more money into the 777 program until the A350-1000 came along.

Boeing and Airbus are large businesses. They are out to make money, not to make the most efficient aircraft. Making efficient aircraft requires a lot of investment with a lot of risk. Incremental investment on a proven design as we have seen on the 747-8, A320neo, 737MAX, 777X, and A330neo is all about bang for buck. Airbus should be able to recover all of their investment in the A330neo in 18 months of production (2 billion), meanwhile Boeing is saying it will take 1100 aircraft to recover their 787 investment.

Originally Posted by the redneck that does not stop

"High 70s, low 80s." What!?! Are we shopping on a used car lot?

That is more than what was reported in the SCMP as what CX paid. Engines and APUs are often "power by the hour", and the interior is known as "Buyer Furnished Equipment".

[Frogman1484]

White none...very true...I wish I had the time in my life to search all of this truly important information!

[goathead]

Swh & cxorcist ,you two are hilarious LOL!!
Perhaps we can convince you to write to the GC and have a Good ole whinge , and use all the energy you spend here typing out all of this BS usefully !!
Better still CC GDLC.......