|
A330neo
Feb 14, 2020 11:54:10 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on Feb 14, 2020 11:54:10 GMT 1
from Airbus press release Very good news. Hopefully now Airbus concentrate on developing a new product Awesome news indeed!!! I would say now Airbus can focus on trying to find somebody who wants the plane..... Tanker conversion prototype next ?
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Feb 14, 2020 13:10:01 GMT 1
from Airbus press release Awesome news indeed!!! I would say now Airbus can focus on trying to find somebody who wants the plane..... Tanker conversion prototype next ? Freighter prototype, 251t MTOW?
|
|
kronus
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,199
|
Post by kronus on Feb 14, 2020 14:06:25 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
A330neo
Feb 14, 2020 18:20:29 GMT 1
Post by philidor on Feb 14, 2020 18:20:29 GMT 1
Tanker conversion prototype next ? Two tanker conversions (from former Qantas airliners) have already been ordered by the Royal Australian Air Force. I don't know whether the work has already been completed.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Feb 14, 2020 18:28:47 GMT 1
Tanker conversion prototype next ? Two tanker conversions (from former Qantas airliners) have already been ordered by the Royal Australian Air Force. I don't know whether the work has already been completed. No, this is a NEO frame, so I thought a trial conversion of a NEO 😉
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
A330neo
Feb 14, 2020 18:40:08 GMT 1
Post by philidor on Feb 14, 2020 18:40:08 GMT 1
No, this is a NEO frame, so I thought a trial conversion of a NEO 😉 Sorry, I didn't see your point. I doubt very much we'll see a A338/A339 tanker (whether converted or new-built) as armed forces in all countries are less interested by fuel savings than in a cheaper price. Furthermore, existing customers would not like to introduce heterogeneity into their tanker fleets. There might be new customers, but would Airbus develop a A338/A339 tanker for a couple of customers ? The only case I could see a A338/A339 tanker is if such a project was selected by the US Air Force, which is a long shot.
|
|
K
spotted unpainted on the Flight Line (waiting for painting)
Posts: 1,130
|
Post by K on Feb 14, 2020 19:16:29 GMT 1
251t A330-900 FF next
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Feb 14, 2020 19:44:21 GMT 1
No, this is a NEO frame, so I thought a trial conversion of a NEO 😉 Sorry, I didn't see your point. I doubt very much we'll see a A338/A339 tanker (whether converted or new-built) as armed forces in all countries are less interested by fuel savings than in a cheaper price. Furthermore, existing customers would not like to introduce heterogeneity in their tanker fleets. There might be new customers, but would Airbus develop a A338/A339 tanker for a couple of customers ? The only case I could see a A338/A339 tanker is if such a project was selected by the US Air Force, which is a long shot. Converting a A330-800 251 t to a tanker, would give a more capable frame than the current A330-200. The point would not be fuel savings, but capabilities. You could increase fuel dispensed or loiter time considerable. You could even add fuel tanks to further increase dispensed fuel. The frame used would be a A330-800, no advantage to a A330-900 in such a usage. It does not have be tomorrow, but in a few years it could be a possibility. Airbus will keep selling tankers and one day they will want to stop producing the A330ceo. Actually I think we will see a new freighter first. It could be a A330-900F for volume or a A330-800 for long range work.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
A330neo
Feb 15, 2020 11:54:13 GMT 1
Post by philidor on Feb 15, 2020 11:54:13 GMT 1
Converting a A330-800 251 t to a tanker, would give a more capable frame than the current A330-200. True. Yet, would customers be ready to pay more for a comparatively small increase in loiter time ? I doubt it. With a given budget you could afford a larger fleet of -ceo than -neo. USAF engine selection shows how low tanker engine improvements are ranking on military priority lists. It does not have be tomorrow, but in a few years it could be a possibility. Airbus will keep selling tankers and one day they will want to stop producing the A330ceo. Airbus certainly would like to end -ceo production, but there is a reason why they said that a -neo tanker isn't in their plans. You need at least a launch customer to develop a new model and, even if one shows up, existing customers would likely decline to add a new variant to their fleet, so that a -neo might have a smaller market than a -ceo. In the long term, of course, who knows ... Actually I think we will see a new freighter first. It could be a A330-900F for volume or a A330-800 for long range work. This, I agree with !
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
A330neo
Feb 15, 2020 12:22:23 GMT 1
Post by mjoelnir on Feb 15, 2020 12:22:23 GMT 1
Converting a A330-800 251 t to a tanker, would give a more capable frame than the current A330-200. True. Yet, would customers be ready to pay more for a comparatively small increase in loiter time ? I doubt it. With a given budget you could afford a larger fleet of -ceo than -neo. USAF engine selection shows how low tanker engine improvements are ranking on military priority lists. It does not have be tomorrow, but in a few years it could be a possibility. Airbus will keep selling tankers and one day they will want to stop producing the A330ceo. Airbus certainly would like to end -ceo production, but there is a reason why they said that a -neo tanker isn't in their plans. You need at least a launch customer to develop a new model and, even if one shows up, existing customers would likely decline to add a new variant to their fleet, so that a -neo might have a smaller market than a -ceo. In the long term, of course, who knows ... Actually I think we will see a new freighter first. It could be a A330-900F for volume or a A330-800 for long range work. This, I agree with ! Actually the increase in loiter time or depensible fuel would be significant. The USA Air Force selected the KC-45 over the KC46 at the time, because of higher capabilities. Only the selection was rerun and matched to the capabilities of the KC-46 and the Air Force ordered to disregard further capabilities over and above the capabilities described in the specifications.
|
|