It definitely hurts them, not sure why they have such a hard time planning for freighter models/conversions. It's a big selling point of Boeing to be able to just convert old passenger jets to freighters (giving them increased resale value after their prime passenger years are over).
Maybe it's cuz buses carry people an not freight? lol. For real tho, i have a feeling it has to do with the fact that they don't really have a good market share, and cargo companies don't exactly turn to Airbus for freighters. However, I do think they should consider it.
Although I didn't know about this beforehand, seeing the video it was pretty obvious to me that it had something to do with the nose gear. Thank you for explaining this.
Sad that you didnt mention the converted A330 Freighters which have a electrical loading system to overcome the pitch down issue. Otherwise great video.
Starting from gear-out/gear-stowed being roughly a 10% difference in overall drag, this thing looks to be well under one percent. Especially given that at a typical cruise angle of attack, there's probably not much addition to the profile drag. Most of the drag increase would be from a very slight increase in wetted area? And then range will be affected by an even a lower percentage than whatever the drag change is.
@@alecbasba no, that’s not the case! There are two different types (heights) of vertical stabilizers for the A330, a lower and a higher one. The A330-200 and -800 have the higher ones, the A330-200F, -300 and -900 the higher ones! The landing gear does not have that much of an impact on the height!
Yes, I was aware of it. As a former A330 pilot who now flys the B767F my question is the new nose gear is designed to raise the nose by exactly how much?
There are powered rollers incorporated into the cargo floor that are capable of moving the pallets against the upward slope to the back of the cargo compartment.
Cargo aircraft of that size are quite niche, plus Boeing has sealed the market off to itself, that’s the only reason the 767 is still in production today. Plus, as the guys at Simole Flying have shared with us before, cargo airlines are right on cash, they want to expand quicker than commercial airlines and their fleets operate fewer flight cycles, than their commercial counterparts. Hence, cargo airlines want to acquire older aircraft, which are less expensive than brand new aircraft like the A330F. In addition, so many 767 freighters flood the second hand market and more and more passenger ones are being converted. There are 3 being converted in a maintenance facility near my home right now.
Its very expensive. An A330-200F costs about 240.000.000 Dollars. An A330 PtoF can be aquired for about 25.000.000 Dollars depending on conditon of the "donor" aircaft and maintenance.
I know about this on the A332F, it looks rought with the blister. I recently saw a Air HK/DHL A330-300 freighter and it doesn’t have the nose landing gear blister. Why is that ?
Most aircraft do ... I would assume the reasons include including rear fuselage ground/tail strike clearance during rotation, as well as the ground clearance for the nacelles provided by the main undercarriage .
And now, Airbus is looking at building a A350XWB-900F model. It'll be interesting to see how they accommodate the new landing gears required for the freighter version.
I would have never guessed the typical down pitch of the A330/A340 series was steep enough to make such a negative impact for cargo handling. And being so, I would've guess that internal electrical loaders might have been an easier solution than this change on the frame of the aircraft.
I had noticed the bulge previously and I assumed that it had something to do with the nose gear. I imagine that an A330 freighter would be heavier than the passenger variant? It made sense to me that the nose gear of the passenger variant would need some "bulking up" and it seems my assumption was close to being right.
Did gess that the they need renforce the hull to make it a freighter, and there was no space in the nose left so they did put the renforcement in the lump. But the truth was much simpler, intresting video keep it coming.
A lot of things can figure in. For example, having the wing at the angle of attack you want it to be at to hit the desired lift/drag numbers during takeoff or landing. Can't just make the aircraft level and build the wing to that angle in the fuselage, because for cruise flight there's likely a different angle you want it to be at.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 The nose wheel isn't near the ground when an aircraft is pitched up for take-off, nor when the main wheels touch down on landing, so the length of the nose wheel leg is not relevant then. In the cruise, the cabin should be level because that will minimise the drag. The wing is then attached at the desired angle of attack for that stage of the flight. So I don't see aerodynamics having anything to do with whether the cabin is level on the ground.
I knew the reason behind the need for the fairing some time ago but I have a question. Given that raising the height of the front of the fuselage will effectively move the CoG moment rearwards, what have Airbus done to compensate for this?
There wouldn't be much of anything to compensate for. Here's a simplified calculation which suggests the amount of CG shift we're talking about: Assume (for now) a 3 deg floor angle change, and that the straight-line distance between the CG and the pivot point of the main gear (e.g. wheel axle for a dual gear) is 2 m. Then the vertical travel of the CG is ~sin(3 deg) * 2000 = ~105 mm. Longitudinal shift is ~sin(3 deg) * 105 = ~5 mm / 0.2"... or 10 mm / 0.4" if it's a 6 deg change. No one can measure the CG to that sort of accuracy anyway --- "down in the mud", as we say. But I suppose if Airbus wanted to, they could apply a few millimeters of calculated bias (the number varying with longitudinal CG location and CG height) into the charts. Of course, the *weight* of the new nose gear setup will matter, especially being so far from the CG. That would be accounted for in the Weight & Balance ledger. As well, certified brake energies would have to be reexamined in light of the changed fuselage angle during RTO or landing stops (different lift/drag/moment/coefficients than when more nose-down).
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Someone had to not only do the maths but also to know how to do it. I was into pressure and flow rate calcs during my working life so this is some way above my pay grade I'm afraid. I've no doubt though that Airbus did the maths and came to the same conclusion as you. Thanks for the explanation, Marc.
An even bigger mystery is what's the story behind the A330-200P2F operated by EgyptAir Cargo. To my knowledge, they operate 3 of the type. It's a freighter based on the A330-200, but it doesn't have the bulge. What's the story there?? Was it a former passenger aircraft? How do they get around the issues the lower nose creates?
Actually, the A330 puffs its neck when it feels threatened and that it could attack at any moment. If you see an A330 with a puffed neck around the nose gear, experts suggest you slowly walk away while maintaining eye contact.
@@wasted-blaster. I happened to like the humor. But if I hadn't, I would have had the good manners to simply not comment. [Re: "Juan Way Trips", if you switched to "Juan Way Trippes" you could accomplish both a pun(?) and a history-of-Pan Am reference.]
Now what I ask myself: will there ever be a cargo/passenger-combi variant with the lump? 🧐 Or some low cost carrier reconverting to passenger use.. that would be cool 😛
@@spongebubatz it is possible for sure. But it rarely happens, because there is no reason for it and it's darn expensive. But UPS did it once with few of their 727s and la poste, also Martinair reconfigurated some md-11 I think.. But nowadays this would be unimaginable 😄😄
I play a game called airliner manager and I have a branch of my airline indonesian pacific called pacific cargo and the bulk of the pacific cargo fleet is the a330-200F
The aircraft isn’t level in its passenger version, the nose is lower. Therefore they needed to lower the nose landing gear to level off the aircraft on the ground, therefore requiring a bigger nose gear bay. There, saved ya 3 minutes.
I did know but I never quite understand WHY airbus designed the A330/340 to be slightly nose down attitude when on the ground? What is the benefit of that?! I know some Formula 1 cars do that because it allows for better handling characteristics but never get why this could be important for an aircraft.
Why not just carry a portable ramp piece, that can be removed from the cargo hold at outstations, to tow the aircraft up to the desired height? ...Boom, no redesign required.
But then you have to ensure that every airport that is ever likely to receive the aircraft is equiped with the special tow truck required to tow in that way! Remember, a tow truck tows on the level and cannot increase the height of the tow bar to drag the plane up a ramp. Built the way it is, the A330-200F can fly anywhere capable of taking it with no requirement for special facilities.
WAIT! Before viewing or reading the comments - I'm going to use logic. It's either to accommodate a heavier-duty gear, or clear room in the cargo hold. Seriously, I recently met someone who couldn't operate a feakin' record player. No common sense or logic these days. OK, now to watch....
"Before viewing or reading the comments" + "(edited)". Looks suspicious! ; ) My guess was some honkin' huge Russian-style nose gear, like they have for landing on tundra or whatever. Or a downward-looking radar for I can't even imagine what.
I find it interesting that Airbus doesn't really plan freighters as part of the equation when designing airplanes.
It definitely hurts them, not sure why they have such a hard time planning for freighter models/conversions. It's a big selling point of Boeing to be able to just convert old passenger jets to freighters (giving them increased resale value after their prime passenger years are over).
@@MrMattumbo Exactly!
@@MrMattumbo If it really does hurt them then they would consider freighter conversions, wouldn't they?
It is airBUS, not airTRUCK.
But for real, I have no idea why they do this.
Maybe it's cuz buses carry people an not freight? lol.
For real tho, i have a feeling it has to do with the fact that they don't really have a good market share, and cargo companies don't exactly turn to Airbus for freighters. However, I do think they should consider it.
Patiently waiting for the a350's zoro mask explanation video
Same.
I think they’ve already done a video on that. Its got to do with thermal insulation I believe.
@@magnustan841 or maybe the fact that they did it so the window is easier to change without having to have the specific paint scheme
Personally I found the “mask” on the 350 windows more like the Disney’s Beagle Boys mask than the zorro’s
Plus it just looks pretty cool imo
Although I didn't know about this beforehand, seeing the video it was pretty obvious to me that it had something to do with the nose gear. Thank you for explaining this.
Sad that you didnt mention the converted A330 Freighters which have a electrical loading system to overcome the pitch down issue.
Otherwise great video.
It’s a double chin 😂
No it's a tumor
@@badhrihari1705 nah double chin is a lot better
It’s a goatie
Simple Flying should comment this. This is far the best aviation joke
A3Peter Griffin
You almost got me with that loading screen
Almost
What loading screen..?
That could've been your internet connection
I think that is a pretty cool and a unique design for the A330F.
I wonder how the added drag will affect the range
Starting from gear-out/gear-stowed being roughly a 10% difference in overall drag, this thing looks to be well under one percent. Especially given that at a typical cruise angle of attack, there's probably not much addition to the profile drag. Most of the drag increase would be from a very slight increase in wetted area? And then range will be affected by an even a lower percentage than whatever the drag change is.
0:20
I didn't know that airplanes can fall in love too wth
Dunno, I think the MD-11 is pissed, it's always angry and let alone against a 777...
~or it might be a tsundere who knows~
@@Kalvinjj lol the does md11 looks mad and angry. I think it's the cockpit windows.
Not funny 😒
So many people have been asking me what this was, now instead of telling them i can send them this video thanks
I have been wondering about that for years now! It is good to finally get a proper answer.
What’s funny is that I saw a DHL A330 landing not even 30 minutes ago
With or without the bulge?
@@NutzerYOu bruh
@@hamoodtatari Well, DHL has multiple A330 Freighters without the bulge since they are converted.
As a Boeing fan, this is a little-known fact, and this video taught me something new. A good pilot is always learning.
Awesome video man.... Before this video I was not aware of that.. You are a genius ❤️❤️❤️
Nice choice to put Turkish Cargo as welcome picture 👍🏼
Another interesting fact is that the A330F has the height of the A330-300, while the normal A330-200 is around half a meter higher
Probably because the tail sits higher due to the lower nose gear, then?
@@alecbasba no, that’s not the case! There are two different types (heights) of vertical stabilizers for the A330, a lower and a higher one. The A330-200 and -800 have the higher ones, the A330-200F, -300 and -900 the higher ones! The landing gear does not have that much of an impact on the height!
I had indeed noticed it some time ago and was wondering. Thanks for the explanation!
No worries :) - TB
0:20 nice staring contest, MD-11 angry as always!
To me, it's more of a grumpy face, much like Waldorf from the Muppets.
I can’t unsee now
I've been wondering this for a while! Thank you for the explanation!! Greetz from Germany and keep up the awesome content!!🇺🇸🇩🇪🇩🇪🇺🇸🤙🏻🤘🏻
Thanks for the feedback! Greetings also from Germany! - TB
I knew about it but was curious for the reason
Wow I wondered this yesterday while watching lepp aviations new video and here is my answer!
I did not know about this little quirk? I googled it to double check, April 1 got me good
Blister, is a most appropriate term for this feature.
No, I hadn’t noticed this feature before.
Thanks.
First of all. Amazing video. I think that is a small extra fuel storage tank for longer freighter flights.
Since the front landing gear retracts forward there would be no space for that
Thanks for the feedback! - TB
Nice
Yes, I was aware of it. As a former A330 pilot who now flys the B767F my question is the new nose gear is designed to raise the nose by exactly how much?
Seen Avianca and Tampa A-330 freighters with this feature while spotting at MIA.
Funny how this video shows up right after I saw my first one of these at ORD two days ago.
Same!
I think it looks cool
And now they’re converting A330 pax to freighter without this lump, what safety measures have been taken now?
From what I've seen a documentary about it, they use a powered loading floor to compensate, same as I've heard about on the 777F.
I didn’t even know there was an A330 freighter !
I wonder why the A330 passenger variant slopes to the front. When I boarded an A330-200, it felt like I would slide off the seat!
Why does the A330 P2F version don't need this feature though?
There are powered rollers incorporated into the cargo floor that are capable of moving the pallets against the upward slope to the back of the cargo compartment.
It would be too costly to transform a former passenger A332 into a real A332F
Thanks for the feedback! - TB
Dude, I'm surprised Disney hasn't claimed this audio
Could you make a video on why the A330-200F didn't really become a succes? I'm really curious at that
Cargo aircraft of that size are quite niche, plus Boeing has sealed the market off to itself, that’s the only reason the 767 is still in production today. Plus, as the guys at Simole Flying have shared with us before, cargo airlines are right on cash, they want to expand quicker than commercial airlines and their fleets operate fewer flight cycles, than their commercial counterparts. Hence, cargo airlines want to acquire older aircraft, which are less expensive than brand new aircraft like the A330F. In addition, so many 767 freighters flood the second hand market and more and more passenger ones are being converted. There are 3 being converted in a maintenance facility near my home right now.
Its very expensive.
An A330-200F costs about 240.000.000 Dollars.
An A330 PtoF can be aquired for about 25.000.000 Dollars depending on conditon of the "donor" aircaft and maintenance.
I know about this on the A332F, it looks rought with the blister. I recently saw a Air HK/DHL A330-300 freighter and it doesn’t have the nose landing gear blister. Why is that ?
Why does the a330 have the downward pitch in the first place?
Most aircraft do ... I would assume the reasons include including rear fuselage ground/tail strike clearance during rotation, as well as the ground clearance for the nacelles provided by the main undercarriage .
And now, Airbus is looking at building a A350XWB-900F model. It'll be interesting to see how they accommodate the new landing gears required for the freighter version.
The A350 does not have that down pitch, it would therefore have the same landing gear as the A350 pax
Please make a video on Lockheed Martin L10-11
The background music sounds like the Mandalorian soundtrack
I would have never guessed the typical down pitch of the A330/A340 series was steep enough to make such a negative impact for cargo handling.
And being so, I would've guess that internal electrical loaders might have been an easier solution than this change on the frame of the aircraft.
What impact if any does the double chin have on fuel consumption over the life of the plane?
I had noticed the bulge previously and I assumed that it had something to do with the nose gear. I imagine that an A330 freighter would be heavier than the passenger variant? It made sense to me that the nose gear of the passenger variant would need some "bulking up" and it seems my assumption was close to being right.
I have noted the difference between the passenger and cargo variant, Never crossed my mind as of the why it was like that.
I didn’t know I was watching the mandalorian at the end of the Video 😂😂
Did gess that the they need renforce the hull to make it a freighter, and there was no space in the nose left so they did put the renforcement in the lump. But the truth was much simpler, intresting video keep it coming.
The music reminds me of the Mandalorian
I think I know. It's so allowing more room so the wheels don't impead the space to hold cargo
WHEN IS THE A350 MASK VIDEO COMING?!?!? WE'RE DYING HERE PEOPLE
Why did the normal version angle down though?
I my guess on this would be just that it allows a shorter nose gear - less weight.
@@sylviaelse5086 doesn't make sense
@@THYB737 Why doesn't it make sense?
A lot of things can figure in. For example, having the wing at the angle of attack you want it to be at to hit the desired lift/drag numbers during takeoff or landing. Can't just make the aircraft level and build the wing to that angle in the fuselage, because for cruise flight there's likely a different angle you want it to be at.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 The nose wheel isn't near the ground when an aircraft is pitched up for take-off, nor when the main wheels touch down on landing, so the length of the nose wheel leg is not relevant then.
In the cruise, the cabin should be level because that will minimise the drag. The wing is then attached at the desired angle of attack for that stage of the flight.
So I don't see aerodynamics having anything to do with whether the cabin is level on the ground.
And what happen with the A330-200 P2F? They don’t have the blister on the nose gear, so, how do they solve the nose down pitch attitude?
The lump can blow up to make it look bigger and scare 767Fs...
I knew the reason behind the need for the fairing some time ago but I have a question. Given that raising the height of the front of the fuselage will effectively move the CoG moment rearwards, what have Airbus done to compensate for this?
There wouldn't be much of anything to compensate for. Here's a simplified calculation which suggests the amount of CG shift we're talking about: Assume (for now) a 3 deg floor angle change, and that the straight-line distance between the CG and the pivot point of the main gear (e.g. wheel axle for a dual gear) is 2 m. Then the vertical travel of the CG is ~sin(3 deg) * 2000 = ~105 mm. Longitudinal shift is ~sin(3 deg) * 105 = ~5 mm / 0.2"... or 10 mm / 0.4" if it's a 6 deg change. No one can measure the CG to that sort of accuracy anyway --- "down in the mud", as we say. But I suppose if Airbus wanted to, they could apply a few millimeters of calculated bias (the number varying with longitudinal CG location and CG height) into the charts.
Of course, the *weight* of the new nose gear setup will matter, especially being so far from the CG. That would be accounted for in the Weight & Balance ledger. As well, certified brake energies would have to be reexamined in light of the changed fuselage angle during RTO or landing stops (different lift/drag/moment/coefficients than when more nose-down).
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Someone had to not only do the maths but also to know how to do it. I was into pressure and flow rate calcs during my working life so this is some way above my pay grade I'm afraid. I've no doubt though that Airbus did the maths and came to the same conclusion as you. Thanks for the explanation, Marc.
An even bigger mystery is what's the story behind the A330-200P2F operated by EgyptAir Cargo. To my knowledge, they operate 3 of the type. It's a freighter based on the A330-200, but it doesn't have the bulge. What's the story there?? Was it a former passenger aircraft? How do they get around the issues the lower nose creates?
@0:44 - It's not like a blister, it's like an Adam's apple.
True lol
I would also like to know about strange front windows on A350s.
i first noticed this watching the turkish cargo a330 on sam chui
Wow never noticed this before. The reason maybe there isn't many a330 freighter out there
That Lump is no reason for the success, or failure, of the A330F
I never knew this. When are they making A380F?
Never
Actually, the A330 puffs its neck when it feels threatened and that it could attack at any moment. If you see an A330 with a puffed neck around the nose gear, experts suggest you slowly walk away while maintaining eye contact.
You tried to be funny.....and failed
@@wasted-blaster. You failed to be funny.....but tried
@@spongebubatz brilliant
@@wasted-blaster. I happened to like the humor. But if I hadn't, I would have had the good manners to simply not comment. [Re: "Juan Way Trips", if you switched to "Juan Way Trippes" you could accomplish both a pun(?) and a history-of-Pan Am reference.]
Once seen, you can't un-see
At first I thought it was a navigator area because the il-76 has that.
ok but what about the 350 mask and the middle landing gear of the 340?
The A300 and A310 have a nose down attitude as well.
Now what I ask myself: will there ever be a cargo/passenger-combi variant with the lump? 🧐 Or some low cost carrier reconverting to passenger use.. that would be cool 😛
Freight to passenger isn’t really possible
@@spongebubatz it is possible for sure. But it rarely happens, because there is no reason for it and it's darn expensive. But UPS did it once with few of their 727s and la poste, also Martinair reconfigurated some md-11 I think..
But nowadays this would be unimaginable 😄😄
@@janwrede4555 They both already were passenger aircraft before, a real freighter converted for passenger flights wouldn’t even have windows
It dawned on me why the minute I saw the first shot of the Hawaiian passenger jet at 0:57.
Why was it designed nose down to begin with?
This is also a Feature on the E-3 Sentry (AWACS)
But in this case it’s for radar or something like this, not the gear!
I am still wondering why he keeps calling the a330 the 'a thirty three hundred ' which is a3300
Now, why the 330 and 340 have this pitched down position?
All of us curious about this....🛫🤓
yes
Why did Airbus even design an aircraft that had the nose sloping downward? What is the advantage of it? Boeing, obviously, didn't have that design.
It didn’t have any disadvantages, until now. Not a fatal flaw though :)
the real question is: why does the A330 have a pitch down situation?
Air France Bonin: Let me introduce myself.
I play a game called airliner manager and I have a branch of my airline indonesian pacific called pacific cargo and the bulk of the pacific cargo fleet is the a330-200F
The aircraft isn’t level in its passenger version, the nose is lower. Therefore they needed to lower the nose landing gear to level off the aircraft on the ground, therefore requiring a bigger nose gear bay. There, saved ya 3 minutes.
I was hoping it was like the air sack on a frog.
But why is the nose pitched down in the first place?
Bruh I saw my first one a few days ago and was wondering why it looked so wierd
I did know but I never quite understand WHY airbus designed the A330/340 to be slightly nose down attitude when on the ground? What is the benefit of that?! I know some Formula 1 cars do that because it allows for better handling characteristics but never get why this could be important for an aircraft.
Yes it looks cool like a frog
Im sure either this channel for another very similar channel did the same video not long ago...
Video begins at 1:38
I like its new CHIN🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳
No. I did not know
Why not just carry a portable ramp piece, that can be removed from the cargo hold at outstations, to tow the aircraft up to the desired height? ...Boom, no redesign required.
K.I.S.S
But then you have to ensure that every airport that is ever likely to receive the aircraft is equiped with the special tow truck required to tow in that way! Remember, a tow truck tows on the level and cannot increase the height of the tow bar to drag the plane up a ramp. Built the way it is, the A330-200F can fly anywhere capable of taking it with no requirement for special facilities.
looks like it was built in ksp
The plane with a Tumor
Kinda sounds like mandolorian music lol
Why couldn't Boeing do as much as this on the 737 MAX? I know they did some but that seems like the only working solution.
If the Cockpit is situated higher the type rating of older 737s wouldn’t count! The view out of the cockpit has to be the same
WAIT! Before viewing or reading the comments - I'm going to use logic. It's either to accommodate a heavier-duty gear, or clear room in the cargo hold. Seriously, I recently met someone who couldn't operate a feakin' record player. No common sense or logic these days. OK, now to watch....
"Before viewing or reading the comments" + "(edited)". Looks suspicious! ; )
My guess was some honkin' huge Russian-style nose gear, like they have for landing on tundra or whatever. Or a downward-looking radar for I can't even imagine what.
More goiter than blister.
The is on Airbus A330 200F Cargo Plane
Ah. Things getting old. That's a waddle.
Iran air anybody?
I think the jet was pregnant and still hasn't given birth for the past few years poor child😢😢😢
It's a plane they make no children .
@@emmanuelmeysman820 its a joke
@@Lee247Jamaica That 1st comment was so obvious I wonder if it also wasn't a joke
@@Kalvinjj idk
the plane looks like Peter Griffin with that extra chin
Airbus ala emirata al maktoum International airport
However they make a simply trick to the 330 P2F to fix this problem. What is useless design for those 33F...