Airbus A330
| Auteur | Message | |
|
pascal83
Inscrit le 18/07/2007 |
# 9 avril 2008 20:38 | |
|
http://www.pictaero.com/fr/pictures/picture,8831 un A330-200 pour kingfischer airlines il n'attend plus que la livraison avec deux A340-500 http://www.pictaero.com/fr/pictures/picture,8845 http://www.pictaero.com/fr/pictures/picture,8452 (Message édité par pascal83 le 10/04/2008 08h32) (Message édité par pascal83 le 10/04/2008 09h00) |
||
 
|
||
|
elmer
Inscrit le 27/09/2005 |
# 10 avril 2008 09:01 | |
|
J'aurais dû être plus précis : Janvier : 5 Février : 6 Mars : 8 Il faudra voir le total sur une année. 8 par mois, ça sera une moyenne. N'oublions pas qu'il n'y a pas le même nombre de journées de travail tous les mois, avec les congés d'été, les fêtes de fin d'années, les jours fériés de mai... Normal qu'il n'y ait pas beaucoup de livraisons en janvier. |
||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 10 avril 2008 09:11 | |
|
Merci, Elmer ! Ce n'était pas pour vous titiller ! Mais ceci est conforme au planning d'Airbus, qui avait dit '8 par mois, vers le début de 2008' / 'in early 2008', en indiquant, sans s'y engager, vis-à-vis du 'monde externe', .... 'premier trimestre'. Ce qui fut fait ! |
||
|
|
||
|
pascal83
Inscrit le 18/07/2007 |
# 10 avril 2008 09:17 | |
|
Elmer ou Sevrien j'ai mis trois photo d'avion de Kingfischer airlines. Question ils sont toujours à Toulouse et pas comptabilisé chez la compagnie. N'a t-elle pas encore l'autorisation de vol. |
||
|
|
||
|
elmer
Inscrit le 27/09/2005 |
# 10 avril 2008 10:38 | |
|
Il me semble que tout n'est pas encore réglé. Rappelons qu'une compagnie indienne ne peut pas obtenir le certificat pour les vols internationaux avant 5 ans d'activité. Il était question que Kingfisher utilise le certificat d'Air Deccan avec laquelle elle a fusionné. Mais je ne sais pas où ça en est. Il était aussi question que les deux premiers A340-500 soient loués à Air India en attendant le réglement de l'affaire. |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 14 avril 2008 08:53 | |
|
Bonjour Les rayons d'action progrssent pour les familles A330 depuis 15 ans, ce ne sont plus les mêmes avions ... Sauf que je crois que le A350 fait (Fera) mieux que cela... http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t175 ... ure4-1.png Merci Brian Dromey , EI JPRS Paris (Message édité par Beochien le 14/04/2008 08h55) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
elmer
Inscrit le 27/09/2005 |
# 14 avril 2008 09:51 | |
|
Pour l'A330-300, je pense que ce schéma montre la différence entre l'A330-300 "basique" et l'A330-300X, ce dernier ayant la même masse maxi au décollage que l'A330-200, ainsi que son réservoir supplémentaire. A noter que les derniers A330-300 commandés par Aer Lingus sont des A330-300E, autrement dit des A330-300X avec les améliorations des A340-500/600 au niveau du poste de pilotage. |
||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 14 avril 2008 09:57 | |
|
Bonjour, beochien, elmer, et chers tous. Aujourd'hui, les dernières références sont avec les moteurs RR Trent 772B /C. Rayons d'action respectifs, "with full pay-load" des A330-300 & -200 : -- A330-300 : 10,500 kms, soit 5,670 NM, arrondi (pour le marketing) à 5,650 NM ; -- A330-200 : 12,500 kms, soit 6,750 NM. ----------------- La détails de la carte sont obsolètes. (i) S'agissant de Dublin (Aer Lingus) comme point de départ, les références sont avec les anciennes moteurs P&W (PW4068) et GE (les premiers CF-6 sur A330-300). (ii) Et les références A350 sont pour l'A350 d'origine, et non pas l'A350-XWB ! (Message édité par sevrien le 14/04/2008 10h03) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 14 avril 2008 09:59 | |
|
OUI Elmer, et le schéma viens direct d'un rapport récent des Irlandais de Air Lingus ... _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 14 avril 2008 11:08 | |
|
Ceci peut, peut-être, vous aider. De manière déconnectée par rapport à ces posts, j'avais écrit ceci (post du 06/04/2008 à 17h37, sous topic, "Que nous réserve l'année 2008 ?", ... page 32) : A+ (Message édité par sevrien le 14/04/2008 11h09) |
||
|
|
||
|
TRIM2
Inscrit le 29/04/2007 |
# 21 avril 2008 09:09 | |
|
Bonjour à tous, Ne sachant où mettre cela.. Cela concerne l'essai réussi de piles à combustibles sur un A320 ( en cas de défaillance electrique). Pourrai remplacer: aider le RAT. http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/ ... /53378.htm TRIM2 |
||
|
|
||
|
pascal83
Inscrit le 18/07/2007 |
# 21 avril 2008 09:33 | |
|
Airbus A318-A319-A320-A321 (Message édité par pascal83 le 21/04/2008 09h33) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 21 avril 2008 09:58 | |
|
Bonjour Merci Pascal / Pardon, Merci Trim ! Ca fait qq temps que l'on en parle !!! Mais c'est toujours confus côté frontière d'utilisation !! Ou c'est un système de secours pour substituer le RAT ??? Et qu'ils ne nous cassent pas les pieds avec la production d'eau et les Ecos d'énergie pour un RAT (Toujours aussi polars les cousins germains sur le vert sujet, toujours le pot de peinture verte à la main à barbouiller au hazard !) Mais attention, c'est comme un extincteur, ou les bouteilles d'O2,faut pas oublier de le re-charger !!  Ou c'est le futur centre de production d'énergie électrique de l'avion utilisé systématiquement ... et là d'accord, ça peut être utile (Eau en plus) et vert ... pourquoi pas ... si le carburant ne coute pas trop (Plus) cher (En énergie) à fabriquer .. JPRS Paris (Message édité par Beochien le 21/04/2008 10h02) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
TRIM2
Inscrit le 29/04/2007 |
# 21 avril 2008 10:31 | |
|
Pour Béochien ( et les autres, merci Pascal), Post transféré sur A318,A319,A320,A321 TRIM2 |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 17 mai 2008 11:56 | |
|
Bonjour ! Pompé de Airliners, un débat A330 (NG, Genx, Trent 1000 New wings etc ??) Intéressant, des opinions diverses, pour le rêveurs ! Un Thread du 16 Mai 2008, je n'avais pas pompé dessus avant  !!Ils ont une trentaine d'entrées sur le sujet chez Airliners : Le GEnx sous l'aile du A330 et ... les autres opportunités pour un 330 NG ! Confrontations intéressantes, ça évite la pensée unique  Quelqu'un à dit Think out of the box !! Et en commençant par retirer les œillères et le nombrilisme !! Quoting Slz396 Belg Interesting idea, especially given the fact that the 787-9 seems to be so much overweight and having such a hard time getting down to its target weight, that it looks like it will actually come in at only a tad lighter (just a few thousand pounds) than the competing model of the A330. Add the expected long term bottleneck in 787 production to it and the fact the A330 just won the USAF contract and it may indeed proof it worthwhile to offer an A330NG. I think it will depend on demand and capabilities. IF Airbus sees good continued demand for their A330 AND they find some time to give it a go, why not? And it wouldn't hurt A350 sales, provided they concentrate on the smaller and light weight A330-200. Who would have thought: the A350version1.0 reiterated? Quoting Gigneil US The engine for the 747-8i would fit just about fine under the A330, especially the A330-200F. JPRS : Roulette de nez rehaussée ?? I really would put money on Airbus and GE offering a GEnx powered A330 freighter, at least. Quoting EA7712 LR US I agree with this. I think a 330-200 with the newer gen engines could prove to be a great aircraft for those who can't get their hands on a 787 until 2016 or later. Which with the delays in the program, and the enormous backlog for the 787, appears to be a good date. Airbus could have a sort of 330-Lite (not the original 330-lite), but one with minor improvements to the structure and systems, and the GEnx/Trent1000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rappel 2006 ! Farnborough ! http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... a330s.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoting Astuteman GB At the moment, the approach is to develop the existing engines with GEnx/Trent 1000 technology. The Trent 700, for certain, has a major upgrade package, based on the Trent 1000, entering service mid-next year. It should result in a "substantial" SFC improvement (whatever that means), major emissions and maintainability gains, and about 150kg-200kg reduction in weight (useful of itself..) Quoting Andhen (Reply 3): Just wondering.. What are the dimensions of the GEnx and Trent 1000 compared to the current a330 engines..? I think they have larger fan diameters. How will Airbus make them fit under the a330..? Yes, but it needs the nose landing gear attachment position to be lowered, removing the "nose-down" stance that the current A330 has (much like the A330F will do, and the "old" A350 was going to..) Quoting Jdevora (Reply 7): Is was suggested some time ago Farnborough: GEnx offered for future A330s but about one year later I saw another article (that I'm not able to find right now) saying that the changes in the wing for support a bigger/heavier engine were to extensive for make it worth it, on the other hand, why spending money in a product that is selling like hot cakes? This is correct, as far as I know. The main spar requires so much re-work, that it essentially requires a new wing.. JPRS / C'était bien vu par Sévrien !! Given the current sales success, (and in particular the Trent 700 upgrade seems to have been extremely well received - RR reckon that it's already paid for itself even before EIS.. I don't think the engine change will happen soon, or needs to. However, from what I can see, once the 787 gets into its stride, and the inevitable improvements start to bite, I think you'll see the "old" A350's CFRP wing dusted off for the A330, and GEnx/Trent 1000 derived engines slung underneath. (A percentage of the develoment work has probably already been done, and written off as a loss on the A350 programme... JPRS: Un peu optimiste mais ...qui sait s'il y a du temps à Filton !! This plane should sit quite nicely underneath the A350XWB IMO, and be competitive for a fair time to come.. Quoting Slz396 Belg It is a given that for all the bashing that the original A350 concept has received, it was actually a good road to go for Airbus and I am pretty sure they will proof it by reviving it as a sort of A330NG (since their is no longer the need to make it sound like an entirely new plane). Although I am very happy with the A350XWB, I've always felt Airbus was taken on way too agressively over their initial plans: partly because of their own communication blunders to try to present it as something entirely new, partly also because all too many people actually bought all of the Boeing mantra about unbeatable superiority of CFRP fuselage technology (which now seems to be relatively limited and fairly unimportant given the latest real world data on weight of the 787 vs A330), and partly also because some airlines jumped on the band wagon ans saw it as a good occasion to force Airbus to come up with something entirely new in the only market segment which was not expected to see much innovation for at least another 15 years: that of the 777 (the low end WB market had the 787, high end the A380 to look forward to). Interestingly enough: a fair amount of the R&D expenditure for an A330NG has already been made (at least the R part of it) and what's more: it has been fully written off by EADS, so that WHEN Airbus decides to dust off its plans for an A330NG, it will be a very lucrative program from the start, greatly pre-financed by the ignorant taxpayer... funding which will NOT have to be repaid! ------------------------------------------------------------------- ET ,,, P&W pas en reste, coté maintenance aussi ! http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... hannel=mro "the Advantage 70 is expected to lower fuel consumption, improve durability and reduce maintenance costs when compared to earlier versions of the engine." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoting Parapente UK I would be very interested to know more about the Trent 700 upgrade programme using technology from the 1000 programme. I can't believe it involves the contra rotating core or swept blades so what part is it and what level of improvements are expected.? All in all this is clearly the low risk/low cost way to go for this fine aircraft -unless the 787 prooves to be a dud -which it won't IMHO. As stated the 330 lite programme must have highlighted all sorts of little ways that the aircraft could be improved. Quoting Astuteman GB It's not the wing design limiting the MTOW of the plane that's the issue - it's getting a physically bigger, heavier, but 10% more efficient engine (maybe a smidge less after upgrades..) under that wing that's the real problem. Upping thrust in order to up the MTOW will bring range/payload gains, but will of itself require some wing work to be done, and still leave the aircraft with a substantially less efficient engine under its wing. Just my opinion, but if Airbus feel the aircraft needs developing to the extent of needing wing work, then I think you'll see the CFRP wing from the "old" A350 dusted off, which was, of course, being designed with the GEnx in mind anyway.. Until then I think Airbus will keep tweaking away with some of the CFRP bits and pieces, Al-Li bits and pieces, and maybe cabin lining re-design, that were originally slated for the old A350.. Just opinion, nothing more... Opinion again, if Airbus do ever put that wing and those engines on the A330, I'd be pretty confident that in conjunction with the A350XWB, positioned above it, it would be quite capable of keeping Airbus in the 250-seat market for a good 15-20 years, or so more yet. Just opinion, nothing more... Quoting Astuteman GB As far as I'm aware, you certainly WON'T be getting any contra-rotation - it would be a substantial change in the engine architecture. BUT:- The engine IS getting a complete CFD aerodynamic make-over, so you might well see "swept blades", as these are less impacting on the architecture itself.... You WILL be getting Integrated Blade Rotors on the compressor section(s), and I can only imagine these will contain the very latest airfoil sections. The combustor technology from the T1000 is also being incorporated, so I'd expect a dramatic drop in emissions, too (and about 150kg off the engine weight, to boot.. Quoting ART Lebanon If more thrust or improved fuel consumption could be provided by engines within the weight limits of what the wing can take without major redesign, that would allow a "cheap" enhancement of the aircraft. I agree there is scope to improve the aircraft a lot more if a new wing and different engines were used but that would take us back to the early A350 incarnations that were judged to be insufficiently good to compete with the 787. Of course, if those improvements were applied to both the pax and freighter version the argument is more convincing. But how much have Airbus spent so far on developing the current A330F design? Perhaps not so much that they are committed to getting a return on it. Interesting mix of possibilities for the A330 though. And yes, with a new wing and engines, I agree with Slz396. It could sell for decades. Quoting Scipio Belg Let me be a bit of a dissenter here. I think it is very sensible for Airbus to make lots of small, low-cost improvements to the A330 to keep it competitive with the 787 (thanks in part to lower acquisition costs and earlier availability). However, returning to the A350Mk.01 (i.e., new wing and GEnx engines) makes much less sense, in my opinion. There are two big reasons: - by the time the resources become available to launch such a comprehensive redesign (2013-15?), prospects for such an aircraft will have dimmed quite a bit. The A350Mk.01 may have been a decent proposal with a 2010 EIS, it is a very questionable proposal with a 2017 EIS. - there is too much overlap in capabilities between the A350Mk.01 and the A350XWB (in particular the -800 and -900). the former would be a cheaper alternative to the latter offering slightly less range, a bit less payload, somewhat less passenger comfort, and somewhat higher direct operating costs. I.e., it would be a $5bn investment in an aircraft that can only be successful by cannibalizing XWB sales. JPRS : Cannibaliser le 350 je n'y crois pas trop ! En terminer avec le petit 777 oui !! A more sensible A330NG would be a medium-range aircraft (e.g., 5,000 NM) with capabilities that fall well short of those of the XWB, but much lighter than the current A330 and with operating costs over short-to-medium range segments that are well below those of the (heavier because more capable) 787. JPRS : Oui Oui Oui, surtout avec le patinage du 787-3 (Ou 5) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments JPRS Diverses opinions de Airliners, résumant bien le cas A 330 1/ Les améliorations Trent 700 à venir c'est déjà un bon plus 2/ Le Genx , comme le trent 1000 causeraient des changements de structure importants, Aile,,, peut être celle du 1° A350 ,,,, Train avant minimum etc ,,, long cher et coûteux !! Timing presque trop tard, mains vu l'overweight du 787, ce A330 pourrait bien faire 95-97 % des perfs du 787 ! Comique !! 3/ Le Genx Bleed et Cropped Fan du 748, pourrait bien s'adapter assez facilement sur le 330 Actuel ,,, reste à voir ce qu'il va donner TSFC du Genx ?? Pas sûr ??? 4 / Et Scipio conclut aussi en réclamant un 330 medium -range 5000 NM 330 NG …. il a raison lui aussi ! En plus, assez facile a faire ,,, Dans tout les cas le timing qui aurait pu être parfait il y à 3-4 Ans (Mais on ne soupçonnait pas les 2-3 Ans de retard du 787, et son sur-poids !!) Cet espace se rétrécit avec le temps donc, une refonte majeure est peu probable … dommage !! Bon ! Ce n'est pas nous qui investissons, c'est Airbus, et il lui reste peu de moyens !! Et vu la lenteur des BE Allemands et les surcharges actuelles en R&D , pas trop d'illusions Mais on avait bien couvert le sujet précédemment !! Désolé, c'est très long à lire … et à préparer aussi !! JPRS Paris _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
Ajouter une réponse
Vous devez être inscrit et connecté sur AeroWeb pour pouvoir ajouter une réponse à ce sujet !
