PDA

View Full Version : Airbus A330-400 High Capacity Medium Range Study


keesje
13th Feb 2008, 23:53
Hi, looking at the continuing succes of the A330-300 would an upgrade as a high capasity medium range people mover make sense?

It would lack the payload & range of the B777-300ER, A350-900/-1000, 787-10/11 (up to 8000nm) but in return could be significantly lighter / cheaper to operate. It would not directly compete with those aircraft on longer flights.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/A330400800.jpg?t=1202945994

A high capasity medium range A330 could include:


new generation engines GENX / RR Trent, reducing fuel consumption with xx%.
additional 50 seats on topof the A333/772
a higher MTOW / strenghtened wings structure then the A330-300
a high LD3 / pallet capasity due to its stretched cargo deck
even lower CASM then current A330s.
smart provisions for cargo conversion.
entry into service 2011, 6 yrs before A350-1000.
range of 5500nm with full passenger load, 4000nm with a good amount of cargo:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?RANGE=5500nm%40FRA,4000nm%40FRA,&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=yellow&ETOPS=180
5500nm full passenger & 4000nm cargo load ranges from FRA

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?RANGE=5500nm%40HKG,4000nm%40HKG&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=yellow&ETOPS=180
5500nm full passenger & 4000nm cargo load ranges from HKG


US Eastcoast-Europe and intra Asia would be no problem. The big sellingpoint would be much lower operating costs / CASM.


A similar capasity Boeing 777-300ER has an OEW of 366,940 lb, (166,881 kg). That is about 30 tonnes more you have to hop around. More then the weight of the 350 passenger payload.


The 777-300ER is powered by 110-115lbs engines to accomplish the long haul polar missions it is designed for. Far more then neccesary for short / medium routes.

At $100 / barrell airlines can no longer effort to misuse expensive, heavy long haul aircraft for short trips. It the reason e.g. SQ ordered A333 while already operating a large 777 fleet. Times have changed..

Thoughts?

chornedsnorkack
14th Feb 2008, 08:56
A similar capasity Boeing 777-300ER has an OEW of 366,940 lb, (166,881 kg). That is about 30 tonnes more you have to hop around. More then the weight of the 350 passenger payload.


The 777-300ER is powered by 110-115lbs engines to accomplish the long haul polar missions it is designed for. Far more then neccesary for short / medium routes.

But there is the non-ER 777-300. What is wrong with this?
# new generation engines GENX / RR Trent, reducing fuel consumption with xx%.
# additional 50 seats on topof the A333/772
# a higher MTOW / strenghtened wings structure then the A330-300

There is a reason Airbus stretched A340, not A330. One reason is that there is not enough space under A330 wing for two engines bigger than those of A330-200/300. For the same reasons, A330 cannot use the big high-bypass engines of A380, even though they have similar thrust.

What about, say, A350-700, with fuselage of A350-900 or A350-1000 and shrunken wing and engines?

keesje
15th Feb 2008, 22:18
There is a reason Airbus stretched A340, not A330. One reason is that there is not enough space under A330 wing for two engines bigger than those of A330-200/300. For the same reasons, A330 cannot use the big high-bypass engines of A380, even though they have similar thrust.

Hi chornedsnorkack, first to challenge agian :ok: I think with a redesigned wing pylon it can very well be done. Thatīs what I included in the sketch. Basicly the same concept as on the 787, A380 and in an even more extreme way the 737.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/a330400787737.jpg?t=1203110133

On the 777-200 non ER, its only a few tonnes lighter then the 200ER. That is maybe why it stopped selling in numbers after the ER was introduced. It has limited flexibility but isnīt much more efficient.

GE proposed the GENX for the A330F not so long ago.

I suspect to get that kind of extra out of the A330 airframe you would need to redesign an aweful lot of structure perhaps to the point of recertification, destructive testing and major cost and perhaps the addition of a center landing gear, more weight.

Twitter n Bisted, thanks for looking into this idea. The lenght of the longest A330/A340 line in the A340-600. It is 75,30 m long compared to this A330-400īs decent 68m. The A350-500 is 67.5 m.

Both the long range A340-500 and 600 have an OEW of over 170 tonnes compared to the medium range A330-400s 132 tonnes. Designing a suitable fuselage, landing gear etc should be relatively easy.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/payloadrangefeb2008.jpg?t=1203113090

A long A350 or 787 could be a good alternative but both will be available much later. Both are optimized for long haul, so heavier. Both are not available before 2015-2017? This A330-300 could have an EIS of 2011. Then there is price. The A330 comes from a steaming oiled production line.

Purchasing costs should be significantly lower as well as maintenance costs (large commonality with A330/340 fleet) .. and as stated: "smart provisions for cargo conversion" could be build in. With upperdeck and maindeck LD3 side by side capability over 60 meters it could be converted into an excellent freighter, guaranteing residual value after new better medium range high capasity aircraft become available.

chornedsnorkack
16th Feb 2008, 08:33
What would be the principal difference between A330-400 and the original A350-XNB?

Once you want to stretch A330 beyond -300, and keep at least medium range, you are committed to redesign wing, engines and landing gear anyway.

The original A350-XNB was not planned sooner than 2012 to begin with.

keesje
16th Feb 2008, 11:26
The former A350 would have had a brand new cockpit section, new composites wings and systems.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=10656

The 330-400 would be a a330/340 derivative using existing A340 fuselages and mainlanding gears, center fuel tank and have new engine pylons / engines. And the latest systems / cockpit improvements of the A340-600, A332F and MRTT / KC-30. (info screens, bigger displays, hud)

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/middle/9/3/4/0866439.jpg
Source: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Airbus-A340-642/0866439/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Airbus-A340-642/0866439/M/) , by Sam Chui

By combining existing family technology & a new engine a very competitive, cheap & Low Risk product with a short time to market could be realized IMO fitting in a market niche that proved significant lately with the A330-300 selling better then ever before.

keesje
18th Feb 2008, 13:52
On the original A350 (non XWB) GE and RR offered the General Electric GEnx 72A1 and RR was pushing a Trent 1711.

Later on GE was testing the water for GENX powered A330F and tanker variants. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/07/25/208087/farnborough-genx-offered-for-future-a330s.html

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/GENXtrend1000.jpg?t=1203342657