Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3386 times:
It would have had the same issues with OEW and rigidity that the A340-600 has. To reasonably get to such lengths, one needs to either increase the vertical component of the fuselage cross section (as the A350 and B787 have done) or switch to an inherently lighter and more rigid material (as the B787 has done).
PHKLM From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Dec 2005, 1198 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3234 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 8): Maybe it's more viable to take a look at this question from the opposite side: How would an A340-500/600 with just two GE90-115Bs perform?
This has been discussed here, the gear would need serious adjustments, as well as the wings and this new plane would enter the world of ETOPS issues; it makes much more sense stretching the 330; which will basically be done with the A350XWB.
Point granted. It would need two new very strong mounting points but could do without the four existing mounts. At worst it would be weight-neutral. But the A345/6 wing has far more potential concerning fuel and aerodynamics ...
Quoting PHKLM (Reply 9): this new plane would enter the world of ETOPS issues
A new A330 variant would also need (ETOPS-) re-certification ... issues of crew training/certification and operational planning would be the same for a lengthened A330 or a two-engines A345/6. Production standards at Airbus are just as high for 4-holers as for two-engined aircraft.