Why are Airbus Heavier than Boeing
Thread Starter
Why are Airbus Heavier than Boeing
It appears that, across the product range the Airbus product, matched as closely as possible to it's Boeing counterpart is generally a heavier (in some cases significantly) airframe.
Of course this does not help their comparative performance, but I am curious as to why the disparity?
Of course this does not help their comparative performance, but I am curious as to why the disparity?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello. Hard to say since you did not say which models are you comparing.
Boeing is usually overshooting design (used to make slightly heavier a/c in order to have more "margin of safety" in its structure = room for derivatives).
Airbus, more or less, goes for more precise "zero margin" approach. That asks for some skills when you want to go and certify a derivative that will carry more payload (passengers, cargo).
Cheers,
Boeing is usually overshooting design (used to make slightly heavier a/c in order to have more "margin of safety" in its structure = room for derivatives).
Airbus, more or less, goes for more precise "zero margin" approach. That asks for some skills when you want to go and certify a derivative that will carry more payload (passengers, cargo).
Cheers,
Moderator
If I recall correctly, the A320 (and probably others in the fold) did a trade off whereby the FBW capability to modify pilot inputs was used to run the structural reserve margin down somewhat. This resulted in a lighter empty weight and the Airbus machine having a good payload to gross ratio.
With regards to the A380 and it recent wing "rupture" during test, M. Garcia, V-P Engineering noted, "while the result means the wing doesn't have any extra performance margin, it also means it isn't carrying any unnecessary structure." (Aviation Week,Feb 20,06 pg 44)
Does that mean anything with regards to weight?? Maybe not, but Boeing's wings tend to have engines better distributed span-wise which they claim saves weight. I think the A340's wing is lighter than the A330's due to wing bending relief.
GF
Does that mean anything with regards to weight?? Maybe not, but Boeing's wings tend to have engines better distributed span-wise which they claim saves weight. I think the A340's wing is lighter than the A330's due to wing bending relief.
GF
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK lets take the 737-400 vs the A320, both with CFM56 engines and 150 seats.
B737-400 basic weight about 34 tonnes
A320 basic weight about 45 tonnes.
Note the A321 with 196 seats basic weight is only about 46 tonnes, ie an increase of 1 tonne for 40 extra seats!
B737-400 basic weight about 34 tonnes
A320 basic weight about 45 tonnes.
Note the A321 with 196 seats basic weight is only about 46 tonnes, ie an increase of 1 tonne for 40 extra seats!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another comparison:
A320 OEW (CFM56): 42.1
Range with 150 pax: Up to 3090NM
Max pax: 180
B737-800 OEW: 41.1
Range with 160 pax: Up to 2940NM
Max pax: 189
Not much of a difference, but coupled with a slight pax disadvantage.
A321 OEW (CFM56): 47.9
Range with 185 pax: Up to 3000NM
Max pax: 220
B737-900ER OEW: 43.4 (est, Boeing claims it'll be "4536 kgs lighter than A321")
Range (no pax info): 3200NM
Max pax: 215
If Boeing keeps it word, rather a sizeable difference. Slightly fewer pax, but more range.
A320 OEW (CFM56): 42.1
Range with 150 pax: Up to 3090NM
Max pax: 180
B737-800 OEW: 41.1
Range with 160 pax: Up to 2940NM
Max pax: 189
Not much of a difference, but coupled with a slight pax disadvantage.
A321 OEW (CFM56): 47.9
Range with 185 pax: Up to 3000NM
Max pax: 220
B737-900ER OEW: 43.4 (est, Boeing claims it'll be "4536 kgs lighter than A321")
Range (no pax info): 3200NM
Max pax: 215
If Boeing keeps it word, rather a sizeable difference. Slightly fewer pax, but more range.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC Airbuses are made out of thicker gauge metal. Contrary to the myths, they are, if anything, more robust than Boeings, as well as having a far more modern build procedure - ie if you need a new fuselage panel for a 'bus you can order one from the factory and it will fit the old hole - rivet holes included as the panels are machine fitted. As Boeings are made like farm machinery by rivetters (sp?) each panel is different and need to be custom fitted (often with judicious use of a lump hammer).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on the Bus, part of the extra weight must be the main landing gear doors 
though this should be more than offset by the forest of vortex generators and the lenght of any lever or switch on the FDK of the 737
though this should be more than offset by the forest of vortex generators and the lenght of any lever or switch on the FDK of the 737
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
52049..I suspect you've been to Seattle and saw the farmers armed with hammers building those 'ugly' ,bulky Boeing planes,right? Thicker metal,right?..
You should watch Discovery ch more often dude...
Thicker metal,right?.. You should watch Discovery ch more often dude...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
52049er:
You're right for the difference in technology but it would be fair to mention that 747 is a 60's technology a/c while Airbus (any model) came a generation later.
If you do a comparison with 777 it would be a different story. Same holds for 37NG and partially for 67s and 57s.
I've been working both sides and to tell you the truth it is more or less the same, in the end. Amount of work in MRO is what it counts and systems and engines are far more complex and demanding then structure.
Cheers
You're right for the difference in technology but it would be fair to mention that 747 is a 60's technology a/c while Airbus (any model) came a generation later.
If you do a comparison with 777 it would be a different story. Same holds for 37NG and partially for 67s and 57s.
I've been working both sides and to tell you the truth it is more or less the same, in the end. Amount of work in MRO is what it counts and systems and engines are far more complex and demanding then structure.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2005
Location: LGW
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 52049er
Sorry alexb, dont get much time to watch telly, what with flying a 74-400 around the world (oh and racking up 3500 hrs on M. Airbus' products before that, dude.)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rio
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flown both B737's and A320/319's at the same kind of operations and the Airbuses outperform the boeings by far.T.O. and landing performance on the airbuses are much better.Comparisons have bee made,on simulators and ,in the cfit recovery,windshear recovery the hard protected flight controls sys on the Airbus proved to safer and easier than the soft protected sys on the B-777,although the pilots,all of them americans of course "decided" that they rather have the capabiliyt to "override the protections of the Airbus in case of a situation like those arises.As for watching Discovery channel,give me a break!!!Pure and simple payd for by Boeing!!!In the program about the accident with the airbus in the airshow back in the late 80's they stated,and I quote:"the flight controls sys,locked up !!!"And we know that ain't true,don't we???
