Why are Airbus Heavier than Boeing
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,166
Likes: 86
From: Planet Earth
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?
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: SEA (or better PAE)
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,
Fleet Manager
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,448
Likes: 310
From: various places .....
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.
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
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
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 3
From: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
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!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
From: Around
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.
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
From: Overseas
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).
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: on the Blue Planet
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
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
From: Europe-the sunshine side
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...
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: SEA (or better PAE)
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
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: LGW
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.)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Rio
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???
