A330-100?

From:         jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber)
Organization: WinStar GoodNet, Inc.
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 23:15:53 GMT
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


The current issue of Flight International discusses a 200 seat
derivative of the A330-200, the A330-100. It a matter of removing about
18 feet of fuselage. This makes the aircraft almost identical in length
to a 767-300ER.

I have to be honest, and say I've looked at the numbers, this doesn't
seem like a very attractive product.

The basic problem is the airframe is derived from the basic A330
airframe which is designed to carry 500,000 pounds or so off the runway,
by contract the MGTOW on a 767-300ER is 412,000 pounds, and the A310-100
is likely to have an empty weight between 50,000 and 60,000 higher than
the 767-300ER. That is a lot of extra weight to fly with. you generally
strengthen airframes when you stretch them, but I don't know anyone who
weakens them when they shrink, and rarely are the wings or other lift
and control surfaces altered.

The result is Empty weight on the shrunken product is often not
appreciable less than on the basic product..

                            Empty Weight
A330-300            262,000 pound
A330-200            266,000 pounds ( 15 foot shrink,probably the big
issue is the  extra fuel tank)

A320                   90,000 pounds
A319                   88,000 pounds (12 foot shrink)

737-300              72,000 pounds
737-500              70,000 pounds (8 foot shrink)

Fokker F100         54,000 pounds
Fokker F70           50,000 pounds (14 foot shrink)

On the other hand stretches are not nearly as painful:


737-700             84,000 pounds
737-900             91,000 pounds (28 foot stretch)

A320-100          90,000 pounds
A321-100          106,000 pounds (23 foot stretch)

767-200            187,000 pounds 
767-300            194,000 pounds (21 foot stretch)



Seems to cost about 400 pounds per foot to stretch, but when you
shrink, you only get about 200 pounds per foot back!



The A330 will probably use the CF6-80E family, or Trent 700 family, or
PW4000 family, although a geared fan like the proposed 8160 is a
possibility. What that suggests is the airframe is a lot heavier, and
the engine specific fuel consumption is likely to be very similar to the
CF6, RB211 and PW4000's used on the 767ER, so you don't save much money
on fuel for the engines, but you do have to pay to carry the extra
weight.

The market for such a product has to be very limited, so don't look for
any engine manufacturer to commit to a multi-billion USD R&D programme
to build a anything even remotely resembling an all new engine for the
product.

There appear to be only three advantages in this product versus a
767-300ER.
1). Cockpit/engine commonality with existing A330
2). Modest Range improvement (about 600 miles)
3). Increase in freight carriage on short and medium haul (The
A330-200 has a very high maximum landing weight, almost 400,000
pounds). Max 767-300ER payload (MLW-Empty Weight) is 117,000 pounds,
A330-100 I estimate at 135,000 pounds 

OF these item 1 is perhaps the most attractive.

I cannot think of a lot of places where the difference in range opens
many markets, and almost by definition a very long, thin route probably
doesn't produce a vast amount of freight.

In return, for all of the missions you don't need the extra range , or
the extra freight lift relative to a 767-300ER, you get to carry 50,000+
pounds of extra weight!

This sort of reminds me of the 747SP, horrible operating economies,
but capable of flying missions no other aircraft could, except that
with the A330-100 only the horrible operating costs are likely to be
the case. The 767-200ER already has comparable range.

It would looks to me like this aircraft may be a paper response to
another paper aircraft, the 767-300ERX, which is still likely to have
a substantial empty weight advantage over the A330-100.

Maybe I missed something here, but this is a product that just look
very attractive?