MatthiasKNU Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 vor 24 Minuten schrieb Pavel1971: My question is more about the actual use of the A330 than the model. Isn't fuel dumping a mandatory option in aircraft design? After all, fuel collection is used in case of failures, when a forced landing is provided and there is a need to dump fuel. In this case, the desire of the airline goes by the wayside The second part of the question. If there is an A330 in which fuel dumping is not provided, what were the designers guided by when lining up the aircraft without fuel dumping, namely reliability, etc.? Yes, it is true that the "normal" A330-300s do not have a fuel dump capability by default. This is because the A330-300 has the smallest tank (97,000 liters) and can therefore land *relatively* safely even with a full tank. However, it can of course be added at the request of the airline, but was done very rarely. The situation is quite different for the A330-200, the A340s and also for aircraft unofficially designated as A330-300X or A330-300E (which actually almost all airlines have in operation, which come as livery with the AS A330). These all have larger fuel tanks, with the center fuel tank added on the A330-300X/E. For this reason (more fuel), the fuel dump system is standard here. Aerosoft creates - as far as I can tell - the A330-300X/E (as I said, this is the unofficial designation for the variants that have the higher takeoff weight and thus the additional fuel tank). At least in the P3D this version was implemented, but without taking into account the peculiarities of the -300X/E version. Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic, Brussels Airlines, Swiss Air, Air China, Air Canada, Cathay, Turkish - all are operating the -300X/E. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Secondator Posted March 16 Aerosoft Share Posted March 16 45 minutes ago, Pavel1971 said: My question is more about the actual use of the A330 than the model. Isn't fuel dumping a mandatory option in aircraft design? After all, fuel collection is used in case of failures, when a forced landing is provided and there is a need to dump fuel. In this case, the desire of the airline goes by the wayside The second part of the question. If there is an A330 in which fuel dumping is not provided, what were the designers guided by when lining up the aircraft without fuel dumping, namely reliability, etc.? No, fuel dumping certainly is not mandatory design feature of the aircraft. There are many airliners which don't even have fuel dumping as an option. All A320 series aircraft for example. If no fuel dumping is possible there are two options left out, either remain in the air and burn fuel until under Maximum Landing Weight, or make an overweight landing. Now for your second question, let's assume the scenario of being above Maximum Landing Weight. Basically designers go with the regulation books. In the US these regulations are called FAR and in EASA CS and so on. In general they are all fairly similar because same aircraft operate all around the world. You have to meet all the regulations in these books to get airworthiness certificate. The reason for fuel dumping systems is not actually the structural integrity of the aircraft in an overweight landing situation but the climb requirements (namely climb gradient) in an approach configuration at Maximum Takeoff Weight. If the aircraft cannot meet these requirements, a fuel jettison system is required. A330 can meet this requirement, therefore it is not necessary to have a fuel jettison system installed. Boeing 747 for example cannot meet all these requirements and therefore must have a fuel jettison system installed. Some further read for those interested in aircraft design, you can check out FAR regulations US FAR 25.1009 which leads into regulations US FAR 25.119 & US FAR 25.215d which lists the required climb gradients in different situations more in detail. As for why some airlines might want to have a fuel jettison system installed on their aircraft even if it's not necessary, I can only give some guesses for. But one logical reason that comes to mind could the added landing options when reducing the weight. For example the airline might operate often at airports where the runway length would not be enough to guarantee enough landing distance margin in the case of an overweight landing. Without a fuel jettison system, in this case the crew would need to either find another airport (might not be possible), or wait until they burn enough fuel to allow a safe landing margin. So overall it it adds to safety allowing more options for quicker return in different situations. And of course reducing the landing weight adds to safety to reduce the risk of structural damage to the aircraft in an overweight landing situation. But aircraft are designed to withstand the structural loads well beyond the loads generated even on the overweight landing, and it would be extremely alarming if the structural limit of the aircraft was very close to allow only MLW. Especially since landings can be unpredictable in terms of how hard the touchdown is. A hard touchdown below MLW can be much harder to the structure of the aircraft than a "normal" landing overweight. But of course the risks increase with overweight landing and an inspection must always be carried after such event to ensure the structural integrity of the aircraft still. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Helzer Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 vor 1 Stunde schrieb HarryBRZz: not a huge deal anyway. I'm sure they will make a reasonable decision. Without these two lines it would be perfect. Just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavel1971 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 Thanks everyone for the detailed response! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeBeginsAtV1 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 @Mathijs Kok I also forgot to mention that the LN-RKS for the SAS livery is in reality the A330E and not the old one. The old registration that would fit to your aircraft would be: LN-RKN or LN-RKM. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airlow Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 @Mathijs Kokis your health getting better? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieB00000 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Is there an interior in this aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp_air Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp_air Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Il y a 15 minutes, CharlieB00000 a dit : Y a-t-il un intérieur dans cet avion ? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying_Timm Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 I simply can't wait to see and fly the A330! Its simply a different plane to what we currently in MSFS have. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuchtvaartNL Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Will there be a KLM livery included at the release ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick3006 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Hello, i have a question about fuel. will the A330 come with the center fue tank? (in p3d it does not have it). It would be nice to be able to do a long flight with it and utilise its full potentiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Mathijs Kok Posted March 17 Author Root Admin Share Posted March 17 On 3/16/2023 at 4:52 PM, Secondator said: Fuel dumping is anyways an extra option of the airline to choose from. Some A330s have it, some don't. Ours don't. And I also believe that the version where this option is not available is more common in general as well. Indeed, it is a rather rare system these days on most aircraft. Unlike Russian migs, lol. 3 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Helzer Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 vor 4 Minuten schrieb Mathijs Kok: Indeed, it is a rather rare system these days on most aircraft. Unlike Russian migs, lol. Sukhoi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Mathijs Kok Posted March 17 Author Root Admin Share Posted March 17 25 minutes ago, Maverick3006 said: Hello, i have a question about fuel. will the A330 come with the center fue tank? (in p3d it does not have it). It would be nice to be able to do a long flight with it and utilise its full potentiality. no, this is the fuel system: 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Mathijs Kok Posted March 17 Author Root Admin Share Posted March 17 On 3/16/2023 at 5:56 PM, Patrick Helzer said: Without these two lines it would be perfect. Just wow. I am asking about these lines. And I did. Stefan commented this: Its not a grey line but a weathered region around a main seam. There are two main struts inside the wing and the grey surface meets there with two double rivet lines on each side of the seam. On some planes, the surface is rougher around those rivet lines and what you see is the sunlight reflected in a wider area due to higher roughness. On younger planes, this is not so intensely visible. On top, you see this effect only under a certain light angle. I will tone down the effect a bit, so all are satisfied in the end See, that is why we post these images! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Mathijs Kok Posted March 17 Author Root Admin Share Posted March 17 2 minutes ago, Patrick Helzer said: Sukhoi I stand corrected.... What morons on those Sukhois. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Mathijs Kok Posted March 17 Author Root Admin Share Posted March 17 7 hours ago, Airlow said: @Mathijs Kokis your health getting better? Kind of you to ask. Yes. Got new lenses implanted and while my eye doc lied about feeling like an 18-year-old youngster again, it is miraculous to be able to see well again. 10 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahmed2003 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 15 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said: no, this is the fuel system: Hi Mathijs, I want to ask about the range of the aircraft how many kilometers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Mathijs Kok Posted March 17 Author Root Admin Share Posted March 17 Just now, ahmed2003 said: Hi Mathijs, I want to ask about the range of the aircraft how many kilometers? Uhhhh, I will leave that question to Jouka. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviation mike Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Will the a330 have the default microsoft flight simulator model like the CRJ or a custom flight model 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Landstar Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 7 hours ago, Flying_Timm said: I simply can't wait to see and fly the A330! Its simply a different plane to what we currently in MSFS have. Agreed 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Secondator Posted March 17 Aerosoft Share Posted March 17 28 minutes ago, ahmed2003 said: Hi Mathijs, I want to ask about the range of the aircraft how many kilometers? It's a hard question to really answer because the maximum range depends on few factors like the flight conditions, the useful weight of the aircraft (full of passenger and cargo or empty) etc. I would say that you can fly distances of +6000 nm pretty comfortably. That would be for example the distance between London and Buenos Aires. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahmed2003 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 10 minutes ago, Secondator said: It's a hard question to really answer because the maximum range depends on few factors like the flight conditions, the useful weight of the aircraft (full of passenger and cargo or empty) etc. I would say that you can fly distances of +6000 nm pretty comfortably. That would be for example the distance between London and Buenos Aires. Yeah, I know it's affected by weather conditions and payload, but +6000 nm is a great range, I want to do flights in that range never had done these flights since the release of MSFS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Regueira Filgueiras Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 9 minutes ago, ahmed2003 said: Sí, sé que se ve afectado por las condiciones climáticas y la carga útil, pero +6000 nm es un gran rango, quiero hacer vuelos en ese rango, nunca había hecho estos vuelos desde el lanzamiento de MSFS. If the load and weather allows you could make an Istanbul - San Francisco. And even with empty cargo, no passengers or luggage, you could go to Australia from Toulouse 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now