AirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2802 times:
What do you think of Airbus stretching their A330-300 and have a new powerful engines like Boeing did with their 772 to 773? So the length would be
247 feet with wingspan of 211ft, engines would produce 94,000 lbs of thrust, height at 60ft with a range of 7300nm. I know they will have to do some adjustments like they did with A340-600. Any comments. I know its not going to happen but can you imagine Airbus stretched their A330. New cabin designs and many more new features to offer. Its your imagination.
Startknob From Germany, joined May 2004, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2759 times:
A 330-600 - a nice idea - but I've got some factors against:
(a) why spend money for a internal competition. When somebody wants a near 747-pax Airbus today there's already the a 340-600.
(b) why invest into a new wing for the A 330 when you just develop the A350?
So, the idea is really nice, but perhaps a "A350-600" - a streeeeeeeeched future version of the A 350 with the bold engines and the wing that can carry the load would have a bigger chance of coming true.
What do you think?
When playing cat and mice it's imperative to know, who's the cat.
AirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2713 times:
Yeah I was thinking about that too. But I thought since it would be a two engine instead of 4 engine so airliners can choose what they want. Also maintenance will be a saving since it will have two engines vs four.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2605 times:
Quoting A350 (Reply 3): Then Airbus stretched the A340 they had the choice to stretch the A330 instead but they didn't. All those saying the A340 is so bad because it's a quad should think about that
There was no choice to make. There is (and was) no way to fit 777-sized engines onto the A330 wing. A compromised and less-than-optimal quad configuration on the A340 was necessary.
Quoting A350 (Reply 3): But yes, I too think that a future A350 stretch is possible.
Airbus may carry aspects of A350 production to the A345/A346, but it's doubtful that Airbus will stretch the A359. The A359 still doesn't have a wing with the uplift capability suitable for a stretch with sufficent range/payload.
A350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2576 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4): There was no choice to make. There is (and was) no way to fit 777-sized engines onto the A330 wing. A compromised and less-than-optimal quad configuration on the A340 was necessary.
And what is going to happen at the A350
Fan diameter of the Trent 700 is 97.4in, at the Trent 800 110in. A difference, of course, but not overwhelming. RR proposed a stronger Trent 800 for the 777NG. This engine would have been available for the A330-600, too. And, yes, I know that the GE90 engine has a bigger fan.
Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
A360 From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2440 times:
I think that a 350-1000 would be as possible as a B787-10.
And everybody is convinced that the 787-10 will be a reality... I believe it can be feasible too.
As a possible 350-1000 would be too. (the wing of the 350 is bigger than the 787 wing, if i'm not mistaken)
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2227 times:
Quoting A360 (Reply 6): I think that a 350-1000 would be as possible as a B787-10.
The challenge is keeping such a long and small diameter fuselage stiff. In the case of the A340-500 and A340-600 a lot of structural weight was added to achieve the required stiffness. It would seem that the A350 would need the same.
The B787 has two advantages in this regard. First the fuselage is 13 inches greater in height, which helps a lot to maintain stiffness. Second, the composite fuselage is inherently extremely stiff anyway. It may be that a B787-10 needs just 0 or in some places 1 more layer to maintain the structural rigidity of the B787-9. The advantage of using a composite fuselage is increases as the length/diameter aspect ratio increases.