Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The A330NG GEnx/T1X00: Ideas?  
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3076 times:

Before the A350, Airbus was going to offer this plane to beat the 787. Now it still seams feasible to offer this plane to play second fiddle to the 787, but that isn't such a bad thing. With the large Airbus customer base and the efficiencies this jet would offer, 30-35% of the market is not unreasonable. Many carriers really don't need 8500nm range, and the 3500nm range of the 783 is not enough.

In theory, Airbus could offer a 340-500 length jet using that same fuselage (330-800), and a 330-200 sized jet to compete with the 787 on many missions (330-700), and offer the former at 7200nm and the latter at 7800nm ranges. They could also derate the new engines and offer 5500nm/5000nm versions of the 332 and 333 for a complete family: 330-400 (5500nm), 330-500 (5000nm). That leaves room for a 330-600/900 later on.

Many EU airlines and airlines like US, EK and SQ could use planes like this. US doesn't have any LR routes, and EK and SQ have a large requirement for regional widebodies to replace the 772s they have and expand.

BA would also be a huge potential customer for these jets to replace the 767s for regional and transatlantic. DL, AA and others with very large 767 regional and transatlantic fleets could be swayed if the price and availability is right.

The question is, for technically minded, what are the easily implementable changes to the A330 that can be offered beyond the engines that would offer these range increases without driving up the cost? If we use the 2billion Euro figure some are throwing around for the max cost the program should incur, what can be accomplished? How long would it take? Can the 333NG


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
In theory, Airbus could offer a 340-500 length jet using that same fuselage (330-800), and a 330-200 sized jet to compete with the 787 on many missions (330-700), and offer the former at 7200nm and the latter at 7800nm ranges.

You'd have to increase the 230t MTOW of the standard A330 to allow a "500" or you would really start eating into the range. The tanks would nearly be weight limited at max.pax. Of course the new engines would help counteract this. The A340-2/3 have higher MTOW but they don't need the trust due to the 1 engine out clause. To incease the A330s to the A340's MTOW you'd need probably about 90klbs engines.

Maybe there's a happy medium but I think the current A332 and A333 sizes are ok as it is.

According to the flight manuals the OEW of the A330 and 787 is both 108t.

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...a/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A330.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec2.pdf

I don't know how accurate they both are in service config though. I would imagine the A330 would be heavier. The A330 is still a very good aircraft though. I agree that Airbus should create an A330NG.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 1):
To incease the A330s to the A340's MTOW you'd need probably about 90klbs engines.

The GEnx are going to account for 10-15% greater efficiency. Other tweaks can bring in another 2-4%. If you can get 15% efficiency from the design, the 6750nm design range of the A332 can be extended to 7700nm without a MTOW increase. And a 72k engine works on the A332, so a 75k engine would be more than enough on the A337. A 65k version could be employed on the A334.

The A330-800 would need a higher MTOW than the A330-300 of today, but not as high as the A345 because we're cutting out 1500nm of range. The fuel and fuse weight increase would likely require something in the 78-80k range for an engine, within the range of the two families. If it turns out to be impossible, I guess you could keep the length at the A330-300 size, but it's a bit too small to be a direct replacement for 772ERs on 5500nm (real) routes.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2685 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
In theory, Airbus could offer a 340-500 length jet using that same fuselage (330-800), and a 330-200 sized jet to compete with the 787 on many missions (330-700), and offer the former at 7200nm and the latter at 7800nm ranges. They could also derate the new engines and offer 5500nm/5000nm versions of the 332 and 333 for a complete family: 330-400 (5500nm), 330-500 (5000nm). That leaves room for a 330-600/900 later on.

I think Airbus should opt for your A330NG thoughts. The A330 just passed 600 orders, and if Airbus could increase the efficiency on the A330 they should be able to catch on with the 787. Airbus used 3 years to develop the A330-200 from launch to certification. Meaning service into entry in late 2010. Could Airbus speed this up a bit?

I am not sure if the added cost of stretching the A330 to the same size as the A340-500 would be beneficial or not, but it would give Airbus an almost head-on competitor against the 787-8 and 787-9. I think they should use the A340-300 undercarriage to increase the MTOW to 275 Tons. This is a better MTOW than the current 787-9. Of course the A330 would need a higher thrust on their largest A330-800, but both the GEnx and Trent engines have been tested above 80 000 lb thrust.

It would be great if the A330NG would get the same cockpit as the A380 a new interior to make it appear more modern. BMW design has already made an interior for the non XWB A350, so this would probably not cost that much money.

The Max economical cruise speed of the A330 is slower than on the A350XWB and the 787. Mach 0.82 compared to Mach 0.85. Could Airbus do something about this without increasing the R&D to much?

The A330NG should get bigger windows. Boeing is using bigger windows on their new 747-8 compared to the 747-400.

Would it cost allot of money to replace some of the aluminium parts with Glare?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2601 times:

Notwithstanding the technical feasibility, an A330NG of whatsoever kind still leaves Airbus with an inferior product compared to the B787.

On a two-company market (what the 250-350 seat-market is), you always have some sort of hunter-prey relationship between the companies. By committing the product you want to offer, you choose your role in that relationship. And with an A330NG Airbus would make itself the "prey" when the hunter is already waiting.

Airbus' A330 IS going to loose market share to the B787 between 2009 and 2013 either way. The A350XWB is a great project to contain those losses of the A330/A350 to the 787 after 2013 and to impose losses by the B777 to A350XWB after 2013 and until the B777 successors is there. Until 2013 Airbus' only option is to defend market shares by discounting A330s down to production costs, just in order to fill the slots. An intermediate, "pimped" A330NG would just increase the production costs at a time where they need to be low, thus its not an economically viable option.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 4):
Airbus' A330 IS going to loose market share to the B787 between 2009 and 2013 either way. The A350XWB is a great project to contain those losses of the A330/A350 to the 787 after 2013 and to impose losses by the B777 to A350XWB after 2013 and until the B777 successors is there. Until 2013 Airbus' only option is to defend market shares by discounting A330s down to production costs, just in order to fill the slots. An intermediate, "pimped" A330NG would just increase the production costs at a time where they need to be low, thus its not an economically viable option.

Yes an A-330NG will increase the cost, substantially of the aircraft, thus making it non-competive against the B-787. I am also not convinced the A-350 will effect many sales of the B-777.

But, I would guess, with Airbus'es and EADS financial condition, due to the A-380, thay cannot afford both an A-330NG and the A-350 programs.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
The Max economical cruise speed of the A330 is slower than on the A350XWB and the 787. Mach 0.82 compared to Mach 0.85. Could Airbus do something about this without increasing the R&D to much?

The A330NG should get bigger windows. Boeing is using bigger windows on their new 747-8 compared to the 747-400.

Both an increase in cruise speed (and continued fuel savings) and larger windows will increase engineering costs of an A-330NG program by a huge margin. Boeing was able to do both with the B-787 by starting with a clean sheet of paper. You may notice, the windows of the new B-747=800I will be the same windows used in the current B-747-400. The reason is the additional costs to engineer these into the airplane.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

But, I would guess, with Airbus'es and EADS financial condition, due to the A-380, thay cannot afford both an A-330NG and the A-350 programs.

Well, once you have come to the conclusion that a potential product enhancement is not worth it, you don't need to think about whether you can financially afford it, right?


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2685 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
You may notice, the windows of the new B-747=800I will be the same windows used in the current B-747-400. The reason is the additional costs to engineer these into the airplane.

Are you sure about this? According to this PDF presentation the 747-8 will feature a new window design. (Page 23)

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/f...tions/RT%20747-8%20Farnborough.pdf



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
The question is, for technically minded, what are the easily implementable changes to the A330 that can be offered beyond the engines that would offer these range increases without driving up the cost?

Any A330NG program should be a quick win program IMO. Launch ASAP and IES no later then 2009. More radical improvements would take to much time. Quick wins could be mainly technical details; get out the top 10 worst maintenance issues (if feasible), a new cabin lay out, aerodynamic wing root improvements, EFB, etc.

Also the launch of the A330F and a possible new tanker version could play a role. A 10% more engine significantly improves overall performance.

A big question is would GE/RR be able willing to come up with the bleed air versions, while they are ramping up 787 production. GE perhaps because the 747-8i engine is under devlopment anyway. RR signed an LOI if I´m not mistaken but for the larger A350..


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2685 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

Keesje, you bring up some valid point to this thread, regarding the benefit this would have for the KC-30 tanker, as well as the A330F. But do you think Airbus could be able to do this in a 2 years time? To develop the A330-200 derivative Airbus used 3 years.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):

A big question is would GE/RR be able willing to come up with the bleed air versions, while they are ramping up 787 production. GE perhaps because the 747-8i engine is under devlopment anyway. RR signed an LOI if I´m not mistaken but for the larger A350..

I think that Rolls-Royce has said that they will power what ever Airbus comes up with in this segment. Even though for the larger A350. It would be great to see if Airbus goes through with this.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 4):
Notwithstanding the technical feasibility, an A330NG of whatsoever kind still leaves Airbus with an inferior product compared to the B787.

Granted, inferior to the B787 for long range roles, and slightly inferior for medium range roles. But that doesn't mean it won't win the 30-35% of the orders I mentioned because of slot availability, fleet commonality (type rating, interior capacity), certain airlines not having CFRP repair abilities, and just plain "it's not a Boeing" political reasons.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Both an increase in cruise speed (and continued fuel savings) and larger windows will increase engineering costs of an A-330NG program by a huge margin.

True. One can assume that 0.825-0.83 mach cruise may be achievable with some wing treatments and the new engines, but nothing more than that. But those speeds are fine for shorter routes. Up to 10 hour flights, we are talking a 15 minute flight time increase. When the plane will be doing one round trip per day on the longest routes, that 15 minutes isn't going to alter that.

Cost of doing anything more than tweaking the mach number, or increasing window sizes would be "nice" but not necessary in this segment.

But the cockpit upgrade is a no brainer, and interior improvements as well. WiFi Avod, lighter interior fittings, etc. can go a long way to bringing OEW down and boosting performance without a MTOW increase.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Any A330NG program should be a quick win program IMO. Launch ASAP and IES no later then 2009. More radical improvements would take to much time. Quick wins could be mainly technical details; get out the top 10 worst maintenance issues (if feasible), a new cabin lay out, aerodynamic wing root improvements, EFB, etc.

Also the launch of the A330F and a possible new tanker version could play a role. A 10% more engine significantly improves overall performance.

A big question is would GE/RR be able willing to come up with the bleed air versions, while they are ramping up 787 production.

I forgot about the A330F angle. Airbus would need to find some way to legally apply some of the program costs to the A330F developments and KC330, but it would help with overall costs. Boeing did this with the 777LR program, as the 772LR would never be a reality without the prospect of the 777F and 773ER as well. The A330F is a no brain winner for carriers who fly A300/A310F.

Rather than focusing on the A350X right now, Airbus should be launching the 330NG family yesterday and offering the A330NG to customers who ordered the original A350. For some of them, the 330NG is all they really needed, for others, they will cancel, but that's life. Launch of 350X can be postponed to 2008/2009 after the 787 EIS and 787-1000 launch, to get a better bead on the 777 replacement market.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A330F is probably the most logical program to tie any improvements to, and then "slipstream" them into the A330 passenger program at a later date.

After all, if it's just slapping new engines on, that's easy enough to do with existing A330 passenger variants already in service - no need for a new plane purchase.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4679 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

They could have slabbed the Trent 900 or GP7200 on the A333 already yesterday, increasing the MTOW and leapfrogging the 772ER. But they haven't done so. I guess because the diameter of these engines is too big. End of the story.  Wink


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 12):
They could have slabbed the Trent 900 or GP7200 on the A333 already yesterday, increasing the MTOW and leapfrogging the 772ER. But they haven't done so. I guess because the diameter of these engines is too big. End of the story.

Wow, you told us but good...

Besides not fitting, the A380 engines aren't going to work because they aren't efficient enough to make it worth it.

The GEnx bleed-air design for the 748i is smaller than the 380 engines, the 777 engines and the 787 engines. This is so it can fit under the 747 wing. The A330 uses the same engines as the 747, so one would assume that the same engine could fit under the A330 wing. It has SFC gains over the A380 and GE90-84, as well as the current A330 engine choices.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
After all, if it's just slapping new engines on, that's easy enough to do with existing A330 passenger variants already in service - no need for a new plane purchase.

What are you talking about?

How does reengining existing A330s do anything for customers looking to replace 77E, A300s and 763s (and original A340s)?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTEAtheB From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2035 times:

This "A330NG" idea seems to be based on the assumption that Airbus can simply build a slightly bigger aircraft for relatively little investment, and rely on the engine makers to provide the technology to enable it to compete with its rival. Can someone explain to me why the engine makers would do this (i.e. cover all the investment and take all the risk), instead of making their money by providing the engines for the rival, which they have already comitted to?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
After all, if it's just slapping new engines on, that's easy enough to do with existing A330 passenger variants already in service - no need for a new plane purchase.

Not sure which way you are arguing. How would doing the above benefit Airbus? They want to sell aircraft, remember!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
What are you talking about? How does re-engining existing A330s do anything for customers looking to replace 77E, A300s and 763s (and original A340s)?



Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 14):
Not sure which way you are arguing. How would doing the above benefit Airbus? They want to sell aircraft, remember!

It doesn't. That's my point. Airbus is better off working on more involved improvements then just hanging new engines on the outside and a slightly refreshed interior on the inside. And putting these improvements on to the A330F program will keep it competitive against "cheap" 767 and A330 passenger-to-freighter conversions that will become available as the 787 replaces those planes in passenger service. Just as the 748 continues to win orders even though there will soon be a flood of 744BCF-capable frames coming on to the market.

Airbus is already going to get all their going to get out of the first wave of A300/A310/A330/A340/767 replacements with the current A330. The 787 is already winning the vast bulk of those orders and a very mild and minor improvement to the A330 family isn't going to sway those numbers much, if at all. Even now, many of the A330 sales being recorded are short-term leases carried by Airbus directly and not "true sales".

By working on making the A330F a solid performer with an early 2010's EIS, and making those improvements available on the A330, Airbus positions themselves to be in a better position to garner orders in the second wave of replacements starting around 2012 as well as giving them a bit of a breather on the A350XWB program to make sure it is working well. It also better positions Airbus against the 787-8 then with the A358XWB (which is bigger and likely heavier) and allows the A358 and A359 to "tag-team" the 787-9 and 787-10.

Also, re-engining existing A330s that are being replaced by 787s makes those planes more attractive to leasing companies who can "trickle down" them to second-tier operators in need of something more efficient/effective then 767s and L-1011s and DC-10s which helps re-sale values and encourages first-tier A330 operators to shed themselves of those planes for 787s and A350XWBs as the costs of buying the "next generation" are lessened.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 14):
This "A330NG" idea seems to be based on the assumption that Airbus can simply build a slightly bigger aircraft for relatively little investment, and rely on the engine makers to provide the technology to enable it to compete with its rival.

No, it's based on the assumption that airbus can take existing A330/340 family fuselages and put more modern engines on them, and add additional improvements to aerodynamics in the control and lift surfaces, and cabin weight reduction, as well as newer flight programs, and possible wingtip extensions, and eek out 10-15% improvement over the already efficient medium range A330. And such tweaks won't cost nearly as much as a new program.

The 345 fuselage already exists, albeit on a "failed" model, and it is the "right size" to effectively replace 772ERs for many airlines. And Airbus can bring it to market 2-3 years before any 787-10 becomes available.

The whole point of the 330/340 program was it's family/modular aspect, and all I am proposing is to use that, as original planned, to compete in the middle of the market, and leave the A350X decision for 2 years.

Basically, Leahy was right about the original approach, just wrong about the projected market share a 330lite would have.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 12):
They could have slabbed the Trent 900 or GP7200 on the A333 already yesterday, increasing the MTOW and leapfrogging the 772ER.

We told them 3 yrs ago: http://www1.airliners.net/discussion...hid=1295838&s=A330-300ER#ID1295838

At that time Airbus probably didn´t feel the need. Since then they sold a lot of them but the 2008 -2013 period can become an issue.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
But that doesn't mean it won't win the 30-35% of the orders I mentioned because of slot availability, fleet commonality (type rating, interior capacity), certain airlines not having CFRP repair abilities, and just plain "it's not a Boeing" political reasons.

30-35% seems to me a little optimistic. But what I mean is that no Company wants to start a new Product knowing that it is inferior to the competition from the first day on. Just compare A346 and B773ER, Airbus market share is well under 25% there ... it's nothing you can brag with at your investors.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4679 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Besides not fitting, the A380 engines aren't going to work because they aren't efficient enough to make it worth it.

That's why I have said: "already yesterday". Sure, engines always become more efficient, but at some point, you have to chose one and live with it, no matter how good newer engines are.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
The A330 uses the same engines as the 747,

No, it does not. Both are powered by the PW4000 or CF6-80, but the versions for the A330 have a larger fan and higher thrust.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
so one would assume that the same engine could fit under the A330 wing.

Sure it does fit under the wing, but it is not powerful enough.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9944 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1650 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A342 (Reply 12):
They could have slabbed the Trent 900 or GP7200 on the A333 already yesterday, increasing the MTOW and leapfrogging the 772ER. But they haven't done so. I guess because the diameter of these engines is too big

Almost by definition, the GEnx and Trent 1000(or T1700 in bleed form) will fit on an A330 - they were going to fit on the old A350, which was the same size and shape. From memory, the only change needed was a relocation of the attachment of the existing forward landing gear to provide 6"-8" more clearance at the nose.
Trent 900's, or GP7000's are 4" bigger fan, heavier, and 4% less efficient (the latter according to GE)

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The A330F is probably the most logical program to tie any improvements to, and then "slipstream" them into the A330 passenger program at a later date.

 checkmark 
I agree with those who say that just re-engining the pax A330 adds as much cost as revenue, but if the improvements are "paid for" by the A330F/KC330, they would seem to make eminent sense.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 14):
and rely on the engine makers to provide the technology to enable it to compete with its rival. Can someone explain to me why the engine makers would do this

Simple. The engines are already there. Both GE and RR have spent a lot of money developing bleed-air versions of the GEnx/T1000, which will still (presumably) get used on the smaller A350XWB's

Adding another application should increase the installed engine base thus providing greater through life revenue.

GE have "offered" the GEnx to Airbus for the A330 already.

Regards


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 19):
Sure it does fit under the wing, but it is not powerful enough.

Only because Boeing only needs 66k. Which would be plenty powerful for the 334/335 model.

A 75k version would be needed for the 337. The 78-80k version would be the tricky one, but considering what has been achieved with other engine families, I would wager it could be done by 2010.

Quoting A342 (Reply 19):
No, it does not. Both are powered by the PW4000 or CF6-80, but the versions for the A330 have a larger fan and higher thrust.

Come now, you know what I was saying. The two hold the same engine families and thus replacing them with a newer generation family that fits the 747 would also fit the A330. That the A330 has a bigger fan only shows there is more room for a higher bypass engine than on the 748.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
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...
Awesome Info On The Genx posted Sun Dec 4 2005 01:49:40 by Radelow
The Boeing Company Has Selected The GEnx Engine posted Fri Jun 10 2005 00:17:40 by ACdreamliner
Ideas For The 737-200 posted Sun May 12 2002 21:02:23 by MIAspotter
What Airplane Has The Most Rows Of Seats? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 22:48:12 by United787
Corporate Cultures In The Aviation Industry posted Sun Nov 26 2006 21:54:17 by Haggis79
MCO Traffic During The Holidays posted Sun Nov 26 2006 19:31:14 by TLHFLA
When The Train Goes Out At ATL... posted Sun Nov 26 2006 18:40:04 by TLHFLA
Should We End The Airbus & Boeing Battle Here? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 18:06:47 by Bofredrik
Has DL Converted All The Song 757's? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 17:18:53 by Evan767
A380 Trip Aorund The World... posted Sun Nov 26 2006 04:20:37 by Tak