Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340-200 With -500 Engines  
User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6764 times:

Is it possible, or practical even to develop a A340-200 with the engine of the A340-500, and even perhaps its wing?
Surely this aircraft would be very capable and could compete directly with the 7E7-900?
What are your thoughts?


What?
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6712 times:

It'd be DOA where it stood.

CASM would be even further out of the roof than it is now, range would be pathetic, and the development cost would be absolutely wasted.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6677 times:

.....range would be pathetic,

A 200 with the 500 wing and engines. 500 wing, so plenty of fuel, 200 length fuselage so less weight, I'd say the son of a bitch would fly clean around the globe non-stop.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4512 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6663 times:

that's sort of what the A340-500 is...


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6663 times:

Could the engines of the -500 be mounted onto the current -200 wing?


What?
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6645 times:

A 200 with the 500 wing and engines. 500 wing, so plenty of fuel, 200 length fuselage so less weight, I'd say the son of a bitch would fly clean around the globe non-stop.

Heavy wing
Heavy empennage fortification
Heavy new gear (needed for clearance, and possible structural support)
Heavy new engines, extremely overpowered
etc.

...yeah, will have wonderful range  Yeah sure






Could the engines of the -500 be mounted onto the current -200 wing?

Sure, if you wanted to crack the b!tches, or lose engines on rotation/flare


User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6634 times:

So ConcordeBoy, how would you improve the capability of the A340-200?
I mean take-off performance, climb-rate etc etc not just range?
I would generally like to know... is the wing the main problem with the A340 or is it the weight of the fuselage?



What?
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6624 times:

how would you improve the capability of the A340-200?

By attaching two shuttle boosters and aiming the b!tch square at the sun  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6546 times:

hahaha, oh your a classic, I love it.


What?
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6539 times:

*takes a bow* Big grin


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

The wing would have to be strengthened so made a lot heavier. With the current landing gear the weight could only be increased to 287t or so. Using the standard fuel tankage and that Higher MTOW, it would only get a range marginally longer with a 232 or 254 pax load, but most likely shorter if you factor in that the structural strenghthening and engines would add at least 10t, (the weight difference of the engines alone is 9t!), to the OEW along with the higher rate of fuel burn. If you used the -500 wing you can add another 20t for the wings and undercarriage. Without using the -500/600 wing and undercarriage the engines would strike the ground.

You have to remember that the Trent 500 engine is larger in phyisical size than a GE CF6 or a PW4000 used on a 747 or 767. It's also heavier than those engines by .5t per engine. And it would be almost impossible to match the cruise thrust of 4 Trent 500's (10,700lbt each) to the slower cruise speed of the A342 unless you fly it at a lower altitude througout the Mach .82 cruise.

As for competing with the 7E7-9. The 7E7 will have fuel burn rates very near the 767-400 around 4.5t/hr, but an A342 already has a fuel burn of around 6t/h. And this Trent 500 A342 would burn fuel at at least 7t/hr. Remember also that the MTOW for 7E7 will be 227t. The MTOW of the A342 is already 275t and this new wing, new engine A342 would have to have an MTOW of at least 300t to start with and may not make the 7E7-900's range at that weight.

This was a very interesting suggestion, and excercise for me, but Airbus is already pondering a 7E7 competitor, the A350. If it comes to be it will be a twin with increased MTOW over the A332 with larger engines of close to Trent 900/1000 size and thrust. But without a new wing an A350 would be slower, Mach .82 vs .85, (if it used the same fuel it have a 300nm shorter range), and without the advanced composite construction it would be much heavier than the 7E7 is going to be. We'll have to wait and see what Airbus does about the 7E7 threat. So far there are not really any specifics that have been made public.

-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6514 times:

but Airbus is already pondering a 7E7 competitor, the A350

Which more and more seems to be evolving into a 772ER competitor and A340classic replacement


User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6488 times:

Is the A350 going to be the same length as the A330-200 and A340-200 or between the A310 and A300. Kind of a side question... why is the A310/A300 fuselage so much lighter??? (I know its shorter, but this does not account for the total weight gain of the A330/340 fuselage).


What?
User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6486 times:

Which more and more seems to be evolving into a 772ER competitor and A340classic replacement

Probably so, because there is almost no way a developent of the A332/A333 airframe could be as light and as speedy as the "clean sheet of paper" 7E7.

-widebodyphotog







If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Is the A350 going to be the same length as the A330-200 and A340-200 or between the A310 and A300. Kind of a side question... why is the A310/A300 fuselage so much lighter??? (I know its shorter, but this does not account for the total weight gain of the A330/340 fuselage).

The wing's the thing. A342 wing and undercarriage is much heavier and larger than the A300's.

-widebodyphotg



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6464 times:

A342 wing and undercarriage is much heavier and larger than the A300's.

...and still not exactly ideal, as it's "compromised" to adapt to 2 or 4 engine configurations


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6461 times:

So what would Boeing do to respond to a new entry in the 300 pax plane market?


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6457 times:

Airbus already tried this on the 342. It was the A-340-8000. One off production and I think it's been stored up in Berlin for quite a long while after being sold to a sultan. In any case, it didn't sell well.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6448 times:

The A340-8000 simply had CFM56-5C4s. Nothing fancy.

N


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6409 times:

Well, you want an extra long ranged A340 based on the -200 fuselage without a heavier wing, that's what you end up with. What possible benefit would hangign 345 engines off of it give besides in climb?


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKorg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6370 times:

I think the only thing that would make the A340-200's fuselage useful since it's not the same as the A330-200s is to actually just slam the 7e7's engine on a lighter wing on it....That should make it have at least 7000nm of range.


Please excuse my English!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6322 times:

So what would Boeing do to respond to a new entry in the 300 pax plane market?

Boeing already has a trump-card in place:

The 772ER still currently demands a hefty premium over the A343, and that's one reason why the 772LR remains so [relatively] outrageously priced.

Should Airbus launch the A350 as more of a 772ER competitor than 7E7, and it matches/exceeds the 772ER's capabilities in ways the A343 never could; then Boeing can "simply" drop the price on the 772ER, and sell a de-tanked 772LR specifically as a superMTOW B-market offering.

That would at least give them sales/time to come up with a different strategy.

[Edited 2004-11-06 10:34:40]

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

This seems like the obvious short term solution, but what about the A model? Does it simply get squeezed out of existance, with perhaps a SQ configuration of the 200ER to take its place?

However, an A350 using new, more efficient engines and with a lighter structure could be a serious competitor for the heavier 777 design. Any possibility of taking the 7E7 fuselage design and stretching it into the 772A/ER markets down the road? A 7E7 fuselage stretched into 300 pax market could be the long term answer to the A350. Moreover, Boeing is eventually going to have to address the market for 300-500 passengers with a true new plane to replace the 747/777, and perhaps the minimum size will have to be higher to allow them to cover the higher end of that range with an optimal aircraft. A stretched 7E7 design would seem to fit the bill for a plane to fill the vacated territory.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

hat about the A model? Does it simply get squeezed out of existance

...as if that hasn't already (essentially) happened?





perhaps a SQ configuration of the 200ER to take its place?

huh?


User currently offlineWIDEBODYPHOTOG From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6085 times:

However, an A350 using new, more efficient engines and with a lighter structure could be a serious competitor for the heavier 777 design

There are a few big problems with this. In order for the the A330 cross section to compete with B market 777 it would have to be first stretched to nearly the length of the A340-500 just to get the same passenger capacity. Then, the wing would have to grow from the A330 size to something closer to the area of the B market 777. Then the engine thrust would have to be increased to some level between the Trent 800 and 900 levels, depending on how light they could make the aircraft. The wing in itself would have to be something totally new and massively lighter than the A340-500/600 wing, or even A330 wing for that matter, along with a fuselage composed primarily of composite materials to gain a weight and subsequent fuel efficiency advantage over B market 777 in the way 7E7 has over the current A332 and A342.

The 7E7-9 range is pegged at 8,300nm. This from an aircraft with an MTOW 48t lower than the highest gross weight/longest range A342. The 7E7-9 will also be faster and has more range with a few more pax than A342. Using that as a guide I really don't see how Airbus could make a 300+ pax A350 that is 50t lighter than the B market 777, that is faster, and has longer range using current A330 structures as a basis. It just does not fit the design philosophy of Airbus. They have shown no evidence that they believe in mid/large size, Mach .85+ airliners. An 350 with that level of performance would almost certainly have to be a totally new aircraft from the ground up and carry a development cost many times the $1.2 billion EU subsidy they asked for.

The 7E7 cross section is already larger than the A33x/A34x, 226in vs 222in. That means potentially it has the flexibility to cover all of the capacity ranges that the Airbus aircraft do. Will Boeing do it? Who knows. The 7E7 will go into service 12 or 13 years after the first 777's did and is the next generation of commercial airliners. So it's possible that at some point well down the road it would be worthwhile to develop it as a general 777 replacement.


-widebodyphotog





If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
25 Adria : "...and still not exactly ideal, as it's "compromised" to adapt to 2 or 4 engine configurations"..... making a unique design which has proven very wel
26 RoseFlyer : To get back to the original question an A342 with A345 engines and wing would be like the 747SP. It never sold in high numbers and had a CASM that was
27 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : The 772ER still currently demands a hefty premium over the A343, and that's one reason why the 772LR remains so [relatively] outrageously priced I wou
28 Wdleiser : What about putting the A345's engines on the A330, just 2 of them? (I know I will get chastized for asking that question but what the hell) Also, I fi
29 Gigneil : What about putting the A345's engines on the A330, just 2 of them? What would be the point? The 330 requires a lot more thrust than the Trent 500 make
30 ConcordeBoy : I would have to strongly disagree with the notion that BC aircraft are outrageously priced. At those prices BCA is making generous profits. Something
31 Post contains images Ourboeing : Did you guys check this out: http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=580158&WxsIERv=QWlyYnVzIEEzNDAtMzEx&WdsYXMg=QWlyYnVzIEluZHVzdHJpZQ%3D%3D&QtODMg=VG9
32 Advancedkid : Yes indeed, it's possibility Airbus leaves it open for future re-engining of -200 &-300 series 340s and these would be named -400. Regards, Advanced
33 Widebodyphotog : Yes indeed, it's possibility Airbus leaves it open for future re-engining of -200 &-300 series 340s and these would be named -400. Uh, not really... T
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A340-200 With PTV´s? posted Sun Feb 2 2003 00:07:07 by MASB747
Cathay A330-200's With PW Engines! posted Sun May 7 2000 03:04:21 by N754PR
Why Small Engines On A340-200/300? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 07:13:29 by AirCanada014
Airbus A330-200 With RR Trent Engines. posted Wed Mar 2 2005 21:15:43 by Bennett123
767-200 With Rolls-Royce Engines posted Thu Sep 18 2003 21:56:49 by BAJMowiec
747-200 With 5 Engines? posted Tue Jun 24 2003 01:16:49 by Bigmo747
The A340-200/500 And The B772ER/LR posted Mon Mar 4 2002 06:38:30 by Flying-b773
C3 To India With A340-200 posted Thu May 10 2001 17:50:23 by Chrisa330
A340 With Test Engines? posted Fri Nov 3 2000 06:47:38 by Mason
SQ's Newest 773/ER With GE Engines Not RR Why? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 06:51:12 by DeltaJet757