330 v 340 Fuel Dump?
Guest
Posts: n/a
330 v 340 Fuel Dump?
Hey guys, just a quick one... I am absolutely 100% positive that the A340 can jettison fuel obviously in the case of emerg. after tkof or the like... but I'm pretty sure the 330 cannot dump fuel... is this correct? If so why? Simply due to the higher MTOW of the A340 or what? Also if anyone could provide Max Landing Weights of both varients of 340 and 330. Any info would be great, thanks.
ForSure
ForSure
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Fuel Dump on all types except A330-300. Numerous operating weights available dependent on customer spec & type but typical Max Landing Weight A330-300 between 177t & 185t maybe higher. Thats all I know!
mcdude
Fuel Dump on all types except A330-300. Numerous operating weights available dependent on customer spec & type but typical Max Landing Weight A330-300 between 177t & 185t maybe higher. Thats all I know!
mcdude
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seem to remember a previous disussion on this subject when the Air Trasat A330 landed in the Azores, it appeared that the Fuel Jettison system on the A330 was an airline purchased option!
Guess that the A330 can comply with FAR25-1001 whilst the A340 cannot.
Mutt.
Guess that the A330 can comply with FAR25-1001 whilst the A340 cannot.
Mutt.
Last edited by mutt; 4th Sep 2004 at 05:13.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Havnīt worked on A340s (-200/-300/-500/-600) without jettison so far. Neither have I seen an A330-300 with the system fitted; the 333 comes without centre tank, so max FOB is around 75t...
A330-200s can have jettison or not, it seems to be an option. Apparently, EK hasnīt ordered jettison initally, but then they bought an SB from AI (around 600 SB MHs, if I remember correctly).
I agree that fitting jettison probably goes along with a big difference between MLW and MTOW.
Cheers,
J.V.
Havnīt worked on A340s (-200/-300/-500/-600) without jettison so far. Neither have I seen an A330-300 with the system fitted; the 333 comes without centre tank, so max FOB is around 75t...
A330-200s can have jettison or not, it seems to be an option. Apparently, EK hasnīt ordered jettison initally, but then they bought an SB from AI (around 600 SB MHs, if I remember correctly).
I agree that fitting jettison probably goes along with a big difference between MLW and MTOW.
Cheers,
J.V.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLW for 340-300 with C2 engines - 186T
C4 engines - 190T
340-600 - 259T
I think previous postings probably correct that 330 doesn't need fuel dump because MLW much closer to MTOW than 340 - might be wrong though!
Hope that helps
t
C4 engines - 190T
340-600 - 259T
I think previous postings probably correct that 330 doesn't need fuel dump because MLW much closer to MTOW than 340 - might be wrong though!
Hope that helps
t
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NFI...
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted a similar question to yours a while back on this forum. The answer comes from JAR 25.1001 Subpart A/ FAR 25.1001 Subart E:
(in my own words)
"Fuel Jettison must be installed unless it is shown that an aircraft meets the Approach/Landing Climb requirements at MTOW less the weight of fuel required for a 15 minute flight (comprised of a TOFF, approach, and landing at the airport of departure)".
Adjusting the approach/landing flap setting within 110% of the Vs1g for "all-engines" approach/landing setting is possible to meet the 2.1% gradient (2 eng acft- 1 inop) or 2.7% (for 4 eng acft- 1 inop) in approach config or 3.2% in landing config (all engines).
HJ
(in my own words)
"Fuel Jettison must be installed unless it is shown that an aircraft meets the Approach/Landing Climb requirements at MTOW less the weight of fuel required for a 15 minute flight (comprised of a TOFF, approach, and landing at the airport of departure)".
Adjusting the approach/landing flap setting within 110% of the Vs1g for "all-engines" approach/landing setting is possible to meet the 2.1% gradient (2 eng acft- 1 inop) or 2.7% (for 4 eng acft- 1 inop) in approach config or 3.2% in landing config (all engines).
HJ
Would appreciate the official answer if possible for the A330-200. Airbus are developing the A330MRTT and if there isn't a standard fuel dump system installed it would lend strength to my proposal to build such a system into the wing AAR pod system (fairly simple mod.).
All EK A330-200's have fuel jettison option installed.
Although it is unlikely we would use it for an immediate return in event of emergency, the single engine climb gradient even at max take-off weight is still more than adequate for a go-around......
Although it is unlikely we would use it for an immediate return in event of emergency, the single engine climb gradient even at max take-off weight is still more than adequate for a go-around......
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally speeking the 330-300 has no centre tank, therefore has a lower fuel capacity, therefore does not need to dump. The earlier -300 series aeroplanes had a lower MTOW of 215 tonnes as opposed to 230 tonnes or more for the -200 series. Typical MLW is 180 tonnes. Typical empty weight is 125 tonnes. Typical pax load is 35 tonnes.
If you can carry up to 109 tonnes of gas, you really need to be able to dump some - I have dumped on 2 occasions - ironically due to over fuelling prior to departure and an airframe swap.
The Airbus can land at MTOW but there are conditions - if you can dump, you will to prevent a possible maintenance inspection.
If you can carry up to 109 tonnes of gas, you really need to be able to dump some - I have dumped on 2 occasions - ironically due to over fuelling prior to departure and an airframe swap.
The Airbus can land at MTOW but there are conditions - if you can dump, you will to prevent a possible maintenance inspection.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My A330 fleet manager said the reason we opted for the dump was in the event of having to land back at an airfield that was a bit limited in length for a fully loaded aircraft - ie following an emergency at, or soon after, take-off, at a few of our more exotic and isolated destinations. This seems logical as the aircraft can land safely at max AUW and isn't climb performance limited SE at max TOW.
