Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Enhancement" Potential For The A345/6'E'?  
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

I would like to discuss the improvement potential for the proposed A345/6E, without getting to deep into the business case for now, please.

Weight savings - As far as I can see this is the A345/6's biggest let down, it carries a lot of dead weight compared to it's main rival. I gather this is partially due to the long and thin fuselage requiring a strong and therefore heavy structure. This massive OEW's also takes away any advantage that the very high MTOW would offer.

Airbus has proposed a new Al-Li fuselage akin to the A350. How much will this be able to save though? When I compare the various OEW's for the A343 vs the A359 - two very similar planes in size, function and weights - I notice that the A359 is actually slighlty heavier. Although I realise modifications in other areas of the aircraft may have contributed to the increased overall OEW. But we therefore, cannot be talking about a massive reduction in weight, although even a slight % would be useful to the A340.

Engine efficiency - I've heard figures of 6%-7%, seems beneficial.

Range and Payload - The range and payload are already fairly decent. 7,900nm and 9,000nm for the 380t MTOW, -500 and -600 respectively. How much could this be extended, 10% say? I understand the A340 is weight limited as supposed to tank limited as far as fuel capacity goes. Also payload, would the MZFW be able to be increased whilst maintaining a lower OEW, to finally take advantage of the high MTOW?

Competition - I also wonder to what levels the 777NG's - which already maintain a healthy advantage - could be enhanced using similar improvements. Would the Ge90 be able to benefit from the same advances RR are proposing for the Trents. And could the 777 be made even lighter - I've read about studies into this on this website before.

All comments greatly appreciated.

Regards,
RJ111

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2399 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A346 HGW version is already a kind of enhanced A346 after all.

But I see some room for an improved version of the A345. Isn'it too late ?
I'm afraid so.

FB.



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlineEha From France, joined May 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 1):
The A346 HGW version is already a kind of enhanced A346 after all.

Qatar Airways will receive first A346HGW Mid 2006.

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 1):

But I see some room for an improved version of the A345. Isn'it too late ?
I'm afraid so.

Thai Airways will receive first A345 HGW (do not know when).

E.


User currently offlineSjoerd From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

Especially the 4 engines make the A345-6 heavier compared to the competition, I believe. However with the A345-6 you can increase the thrust (more powerful and efficient engines), whereas the B772LR and 3ER are limited there because of the 2 engines only. This might be an advantge for the A345-6 in the future.

Sjoerd



Flanders + Wallonnia + Brussels = the UNITED STATES of BELGIUM
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3598 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting Sjoerd (Reply 3):
However with the A345-6 you can increase the thrust (more powerful and efficient engines), whereas the B772LR and 3ER are limited there because of the 2 engines only. This might be an advantage for the A345-6 in the future.

The only way more thrust can improve range is to allow greater TOGW. TOGW is already a problem for the A346 due to high wing loading.

Quoting RJ111 (Thread starter):
The range and payload are already fairly decent. 7,900nm and 9,000nm for the 380t MTOW, -500 and -600 respectively. How much could this be extended, 10% say?

With a 6% to 7 % TSFC improvement, a 10% range improvement will require either a 10 tonne OEW improvement or a 3% to 4% drag improvement. Of course, there could a combination OEW/drag improvement. Airbus would have their work cutout for them.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2567 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Thread starter):
When I compare the various OEW's for the A343 vs the A359 - two very similar planes in size, function and weights - I notice that the A359 is actually slighlty heavier.

The A359 is 2.5% longer. Also I believe the engine cores are heavier than two A343 engines, though I'm not sure whether the engine+mounting apparatus is heavier or not than that for the A343 engines.

Quoting Sjoerd (Reply 3):
Especially the 4 engines make the A345-6 heavier compared to the competition, I believe. However with the A345-6 you can increase the thrust (more powerful and efficient engines), whereas the B772LR and 3ER are limited there because of the 2 engines only. This might be an advantge for the A345-6 in the future.

More efficient engines should reduce the need for thrust as TOW for a given mission can be less. It doesn't seem to me that thrust increases will be important for an aircraft that is going to gain range from reduced weight and more efficient engines. It's likely that lightening the aircraft and improving efficiency will boost range A346E to 8500nm. But so would doing the same for 773ER.

Four engines still seems to be less efficient than two, and not only because of the reduced thrust/engine weight from the additional engine cores, accessories and pylons.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineA360 From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2537 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Thread starter):
Would the Ge90 be able to benefit from the same advances RR are proposing for the Trents.

Isn't RR proposing to equip the 340's with Trent 1000's(referred as the Trent 1500 version), instead of the actual Trent500's?

That would be a completely new engine... And unless a new engine is build, the 777 won't have new engines, the GE90's could be improved a bit.... but not as dramatically as new engines would.

Regards:
A360


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2728 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5):
Four engines still seems to be less efficient than two

For the time being that is...

However, it increasingly seems as if the A340-600E could be fitted with a slightly modified version of the new generation of superefficient medium thrust engines developed for the 787/A350, in which case it would obviously open quite some new possibilities for this plane.
Especially because it is understood the high thrust engines of the 777 will NOT be able to benefit from any of the new low-consumption combustion chambers anytime soon since that would require them to run with too high EGTs for such small combustion chambers.
The technology will come to the GE-90 too in the end, but not so soon as it will to the Trent 500 it seems; it might take several years more...

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5):
It's likely that lightening the aircraft and improving efficiency will boost range A346E to 8500nm. But so would doing the same for 773ER.

Indeed, if Airbus wants to make the A340-600E truly competitive with the 773ER, they have to give it a significant and inherent advantage over its competitor which the later can not overcome by things easily available to both manufacturers like aerodynamic improvements. The 777 has its lower EOW as real advantage.... can the future Trent 1500 (the Trent 500 with the Trent 1700 power section) constitute a main advantage for the A34O-600E?
I think it is futile to discuss this at present, RR and Airbus most certainly know the answer (soon) and depending on their decision, we might say YES or NO then...


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...
Will The 747-400 "stretch" Be A Match For The A3XX posted Sun Jun 25 2000 01:01:39 by Continental
1 More Order For The A345. posted Sun Nov 20 2005 02:40:47 by AirbusDriver
Leahy: "Still A Strong Market For The A340" posted Wed Jul 19 2006 22:01:23 by BoomBoom
BA Featured On Queer Eye For The "British" Guy posted Wed Jan 26 2005 05:42:28 by Deltabobo
1947 Air Travel - Really For The "well-off" Only? posted Mon Sep 6 2004 01:25:50 by L410Turbolet
SQ Removing "Leadership" From The A345's? posted Sat May 29 2004 18:12:34 by N754PR
Auditions For The Voice Of "ted" (United) posted Thu Apr 1 2004 17:32:46 by SonicKidatBWI
"Nobody Is Raising Their Hands For The 7E7" posted Thu Feb 26 2004 11:31:03 by KEESJE
For The Aussies: "Airport" Is On Now posted Sun Nov 17 2002 07:57:18 by Zanadou
"Sharing The Sky" - Special Colors For United posted Wed May 29 2002 23:09:05 by Airworthy