Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A320E In The Pipeline, AK Lining For Launch?  
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 11814 times:

Highly interesting press report:

Quote:
SINGAPORE (MarketWatch) -- AirAsia Bhd (5099.KU) will exercise an option for 50 Airbus A320s in the "very near future", the discount carrier's chief executive Tony Fernandes said Friday in a speech to a corporate event in Singapore.

On Jan 9., Fernandes said the Malaysia-based carrier had signed a firm order for 50 A320s and taken an option for another 50. The planes have a list price of about $70 million or $3.5 billion for 50.

Asked to define the "very near future", Fernandes said AirAsia will wait to see a new engine design for the A320s before exercising the option.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...A9B-3CFD-40C1-91E1-A0FA4DD7D305%7D


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6441 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11590 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Thread starter):
Highly interesting press report:

Not really "highly interesting" in that it doesn't say anything about the "new engine design" and delivery time frame is a ways off.

The 50 firm orders deliveries go through to 2013, so the 50 options based on a "new engine design" is +6 years out.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11580 times:

"Airbus rethinks plan to put winglets on A320"

Quote:
Airbus’s mid-life update for the A320 family has hit trouble with the revelation that it is unlikely to adopt new large winglets that were central to expected fuel burn improvements...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+plan+to+put+winglets+on+A320.html

The A320 "Enhanced" design concept floated by Mr. Leahy in June anticipated up to half of the projected fuel savings coming from the installation of "large winglets:"



Quote:
Airbus is working on the Enhanced models with the target of reducing fuel burn by 4-5%. “I would bet we probably can achieve this,” says Leahy. He says that “the winglets could get a couple of percent, the aerodynamic clean-up could get another 1% and a little more tweaking here and there could give another 1% on today’s A320”.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...dy+plans+with+upgraded+'A320.html

An updated A320 without the winglets, though a perfectly natural and desireable evolution of the design, may not live up to the monicker "enhanced;" at least not as originally touted by Mr. Leahy last summer.

[Edited 2007-01-12 13:19:10]

User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11516 times:

Forget about winglets or any other aerodynamic features; something much better came almost out of the blue after John Leahy floathed the idea of an A320E.

Still remember the proposal from PW recently in which they tooted an all-new highly efficient engine for the A320 (up to 12% lower tsfc), which would increase overall efficiency of the A320 by 6% (since the engine itself would be bigger and heavier).

The new engine would be available only to the A320 (since there isn't enough clearance to fit it to the 737NG) and could be in service already beginning of next decade according to the engine manufacturer in the article.

If Airbus indeed has picked up the offer from PW, then it is bound to give the formal go-ahead somewhere this year and a mega-order for 50 planes from a low cost customer like AK would definitely be something Airbus likes to keep quiet till they are ready to announce it...

[Edited 2007-01-12 13:26:01]

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11471 times:

"P&W touts geared turbofan version of Airbus A320 as early as 2011 to gain two year advantage over potential new Boeing narrowbody"

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+gain+two+year+advantage+over.html


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11439 times:

That's the article, thank you for the link, leelaw.

It sounds as if Airbus has floated the idea of an A320E centered around a new PW-engine with Mr Fernandes and he has fallen for it: 'Launch it and we'll double the order right away'.

[Edited 2007-01-12 13:33:26]

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11325 times:

Here's another interesting article from earlier last year as well which may serve to temper some enthusiasm:

"Gearing up again: Pratt & Whitney's obsession with the geared turbofan"

Quote:
Pratt & Whitney’s long-standing passion, some might say obsession, for the geared turbofan (GTF) concept is well known. Equally familiar, however, is the frequency over the past 20 years with which this apparently promising technology has either failed to live up to its promise, or been ruled out on the grounds of high cost, or risk, or both...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles.../03/07/205312/Gearingup+again.html


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11160 times:

The GTF is one of those innovative concepts which is easier said than done, hence the fact it has indeed been floated several times in the past and why Airbus probably isn't embracing it right away, despite the seemingly huge benefits.

On the other hand, it would be foolish of Airbus NOT to seriously consider it as it gives them a clear advantage over their competitor and -at least discretely- try to market it with some key customers to see their response, provided of course they feel the technology is on the eve of a break through...

P&W recent comments they will conduct the first ground test of the GTF demonstrator engine in mid-November 2007, might have given Airbus very good grounds to give it a try and provided it gets enough positive response like this one, they might actually do it.

Whatever the outcome, it definitely sounds as if Mr. Fernades is talking about the GTF for the A320, so presumably it has been shown to him as a credible improvement to the A320 for the "very near future".

[Edited 2007-01-12 14:35:10]

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11080 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2):
An updated A320 without the winglets, though a perfectly natural and desirable evolution of the design, may not live up to the monicker "enhanced;" at least not as originally touted by Mr. Leahy last summer.

How much of the welding technology and Al-Li alloy technology could be introduced? Presumably welding would make for some weight savings as well as cost reductions and lighter alloys - well!

When the A330 was turning into a 350 Mark I or II it was gaining internal space by redesign (welding +Al-Li alloys). Presumably a similar effort on the A320 would be possible and add to the width advantage it already has.

I was sitting waiting in our local mall today, and as the fatty boomsticks passed with monotonous regularity, it seemed that wider NBs will be all the rage!

As has been beaten to death on many other threads, Airbus' financial future is heavily dependent on the A32x so it is surely worth a bit of effort to make it even more competitive and, perhaps, easier to build.


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11004 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
How much of the welding technology and Al-Li alloy technology could be introduced? Presumably welding would make for some weight savings as well as cost reductions and lighter alloys - well!

I would assume that this is more a constant product improvement and less a block-change issue. Usuing laser welding should shovel off a couple of kilos, Al-Li as well - question is only the price for using these applications. But in general I agree - Airbus should try to wring out as much as possible of an A320 V2.0.

Out of curiosity: what was the original OEW for the first A320-200s, and what is it for today´s?



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31422 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):
The GTF is one of those innovative concepts which is easier said than done, hence the fact it has indeed been floated several times in the past and why Airbus probably isn't embracing it right away, despite the seemingly huge benefits.

On the other hand, it would be foolish of Airbus NOT to seriously consider it as it gives them a clear advantage over their competitor and -at least discretely- try to market it with some key customers to see their response, provided of course they feel the technology is on the eve of a break through...

It would also give P&W "on wing" experience with the GTF for a few years to work out the bugs - just in time for Boeing to hang the latest version on the 737RS/Y1.  duck 

Seriously, Airbus has nothing to lose by improving the A320. They may not be able to launch the A320RS on the same schedule as Boeing is planning Y1, so improving the plane now will continue to fill the order backlog while the model is "hot" (much like the A330, now) and provide them a "revenue cushion" should things start to get "lean" as Boeing sorties the Y1.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10941 times:

Airbus needs to sustain, even significantly grow earnings provided by the narrowbody programs, particularly in the 2010-13 timeframe, since:

Quote:
"No doubt, the Ebit contribution from twin-aisles will start to diminish from 2010," says Olivier Andries, head of strategy at Airbus.

See: "Airbus Wide-Body Slump Portends New Headaches" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116827800448070351.html

A GTF powered A320E, if ultimately feasible, could possibly be just what the doctor ordered.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10834 times:

GE /CFM are also working on a LEAP56 CFM56 improvement, bigger carbon fan, etc. but keep very quiet on it. For fun I made a spec & Henry Lam a artist impression some time before Airbus tested the water for a 320E.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00007055.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2724857


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10805 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 9):
Out of curiosity: what was the original OEW for the first A320-200s, and what is it for today´s?

Good question!

Is your couple of kilos an English couple (understated) or a German couple (2.0000)?  Smile According to those who know more than I, the lower need for overlap with riveting would be quite significant as well as removing the need for the rivets and the associated "performance".


User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7259 times:

If AK want to do this let them. It could bring AB some much needed money. I hope IAE chips in for this one.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7075 times:

I would think that with the GTF engine, if PW is serious, they need to move forward on a version for the 320 and one for the 737, and do it on spec. It's a gamble, but the best achievements in flight have come from gambling like that...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7076 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
It's a gamble, but the best achievements in flight have come from gambling like that...

True, the 707 and DC-8 are both examples.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6548 times:

747, 777, 787, A300, A320 as well. All risky, all paid off (well, the 787 still has some work to go...)


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5476 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
I would think that with the GTF engine, if PW is serious, they need to move forward on a version for the 320 and one for the 737, and do it on spec.

This is how they propose to do it.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...urbofan+family+for+narrowbody.html

Quote:
"The plan means the GTF, if launched as planned, will benefit from advanced military engine design technology honed through the recently concluded US government-industry Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) programme, and implemented in engines such as the F119 and later F100s. The initial proof-of-concept demonstrator, due to run for the first time at the end of 2007 initially as a ground-based engine, is based on the PW6000 core and until recently was widely expected to be used by P&W as the basis for the production GTF.

Confirming the move, which signals a return to the strategy that led to the development of engines such as the JT8D turbofan from the military J52 turbojet, P&W director of advanced programmes Simeon Austin says: 'We're looking at how we can use that same core for both commercial and military applications.' As far as the GTF is concerned Austin says: 'The production version is not based on a 6000, it's based around the new core, which we will hope to make use of in other ways. It's a way to address the cost and maximise the benefits.'"



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5396 times:

This is very cool and it would be great to see PW back in competition. Two suppliers are not enough.

As to wing modification, obviously the pylon would be new. Obviously, some internal structural changes would need to be made to the wing. Would any external changes be needed (other than the pylon)?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
I would think that with the GTF engine, if PW is serious, they need to move forward on a version for the 320 and one for the 737, and do it on spec.

It's not possible to fit a GTF engine to the 737 because of ground clearance.


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5276 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
Still remember the proposal from PW recently in which they tooted an all-new highly efficient engine for the A320 (up to 12% lower tsfc), which would increase overall efficiency of the A320 by 6% (since the engine itself would be bigger and heavier).

Quite an enhancement by the sound of it. At last Airbus has a chance to leapfrog a Boeing product for a limited time (until the 737 replacement is launched). Once Boeing shows its hand with Y1, Airbus can then spend some time working out how to match it or surpass it with its NGSA 320 design and thus avoid the design chaos that ensued when it tried to decide how to counter the 787.

BTW, would Boeing be using the same engine in Y1 or might there be a better engine available by the time Y1 gets under way?


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5242 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 20):
BTW, would Boeing be using the same engine in Y1 or might there be a better engine available by the time Y1 gets under way?

IIRC, both OEMs believe the business case for a new-generation single-aisle aircraft would not be viable unless it offered at least a 10% improvement in fuel burn. In order for Boeing to justify lauching a new platform, they may require a powerplant even more fuel efficient than the first iteration of the GTF proposed for an updated version of the A320.

[Edited 2007-01-13 14:12:10]

User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5177 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 21):
IIRC, both OEMs believe the business case for a new-generation single-aisle aircraft would not be viable unless it offered at least a 10% improvement in fuel burn. In order for Boeing to justify lauching a new platform, they may require a powerplant even more fuel efficient than the first iteration of the GTF proposed for an updated version of the A320.

All the more reason for Airbus to adopt the GTF V1 engine for an enhanced A320. Could give the A320 the edge for a number of years at little development cost.


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4984 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 22):
More reason for Airbus to adopt the GTF V1 engine for an enhanced A320. It could give the A320 the edge for a number of years at little development cost.

Some figures to work with from open sources:

The costs for certifying the A320 family with a new engine and the necessary wing/pylon modifications are estimated to be somewhere in between 0.4 and 0.8bn euro; even if PW isn't willing to partially fund some of that (unlikely given their desire to return 'big' to the civil aviation market), this kind of investment is peanuts really, especially as it would restore the clear superiority of the A320 in its market segment for about half a decade and could be recouped through as few as 50 to 70 sales (about the size of the expected AK order)!

Imagine Airbus manages to go roughly from a 50/50 market split with the 737NG to a 65/35 thanks to it, which is BTW still a rather conservative estimate if indeed the efficiency gap between 737NG and A320 would be between 6 to 8% (the experience with the A346 vs 773 has shown us such an efficiency difference basically renders the less efficient plane almost marginal), it would lead Airbus to quite easily sell 100+ more A320s a YEAR, or a total of 500 extra A320s at least over the period before Y1, meaning this small investment would thus bring in 15 to 20 BN euro of extra revenue...

To put it easily understandable: a simple engine swap on the A320 could pay for the entire A380 program TWICE!

BTW- whoever said the production increase to 36 (+4) A320s from 3 lines by 2010 was simply unsane and certainly not-market driven??? It couldn't be this increase already takes into account the likely higher demand for the A320 thanks to the GFT engine which is apparently presented to key customers, could it???  

[Edited 2007-01-13 18:27:20]

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4933 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 23):
The costs for certifying the A320 family with a new engine and the necessary wing/pylon modifications are estimated to be somewhere in between 0.4 and 0.8bn euro; even if PW isn't willing to partially fund some of that (unlikely given their desire to return 'big' to the civil aviation market), this kind of investment is peanuts really, especially as it would restore the clear superiority of the A320 in its market segment for about half a decade and could be recouped through as few as 50 to 70 sales (about the size of the expected AK order)!

Imagine Airbus manages to go roughly from a 50/50 market split with the 737NG to a 65/35 thanks to it, which is BTW still a rather conservative estimate if indeed the efficiency gap between 737NG and A320 would be between 6 to 8% (the experience with the A346 vs 773 has shown us such an efficiency difference of this kind basically renders the less efficient plane almost marginal), it would lead Airbus to sell 100+ more A320s a YEAR, or a total of almost 500 extra A320s over the period before Y1, meaning this low risk investment could thus bring in 15 to 20 BN euro of extra revenue...

Good analysis so far!

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 23):
To put it easily understandable: a simple engine swap on the A320 could pay for the entire A380 program TWICE!

No. This could bring in 15B euro in revenue, not 15B euro in profit. It might bring in 1B euro in profit and that might not even pay for the late delivery compensation due to the WhaleJet fiasco. Still, it's 1B euro in additional profit that Airbus need right now in order to develop the A350.


25 Post contains images Slz396 : It's actually 15 BN euro of extra cash flow, which is where Airbus funds its development programs from.
26 Rheinbote : An early (say 2010/11) GTF by Pratt would probably have to be based on the PW6000 and would be eclipsed not much later by any new design based on a mo
27 Zvezda : I wish business were so easy. With that 15B euro will come about 14B euro in costs that must be paid (mostly in advance). This would really yield on
28 Post contains images Slz396 : Not even going to explain this one because I know for sure you know better than you pretend here... BTW- just for the record and actually unrelated t
29 Post contains images Zvezda : We were talking about very, very rough order of magnitude numbers. I even wrote "on the order of ..." to make that clear. No need to try to add signi
30 Ikramerica : It "wasn't possible" to fit a high bypass turban fan under the 737 wing until it became possible...
31 Slz396 : Excuse me? 1/15th IS 6.66% so I haven't added anything at all to your words, I've just put it differently. Anyhow, what counts here is not so much th
32 Art : What happened to make this possible? Did the fan get smaller or did the u/c get taller? Or a bit of both?
33 Slz396 : If I understand the technical aspects correctly, the GTF is going to have a much bigger fan than the CFM56 and more importantly it is going to weigh
34 Slz396 : Boeing tweaked the structure of the wing and plane and hang it out in front of the wing (just have a look at where the engines hang on the 737).... I
35 Stitch : But that cash flow can't just be used for anything Airbus wishes. A320 suppliers are going to want to be paid for the components they provide to Airb
36 Slz396 : If you look at the production ramp up for the A320 which is planned between January this year and end 2009, you'll find it actually adds capacity for
37 Gbfra : The day the A380 was officially launched French and Germans at EADS concluded that if ever a second assembly line for the A320 was needed in Europe it
38 Post contains images Rheinbote : Just where do you see that Airbus is doing so?
39 Slz396 : The apparent presentation of a new engine design for the A320 is the very subject of this discussion, Rheinbote.
40 Post contains images Leelaw : Presumably from the somewhat oblique remarks of Mr. Fernandez quoted in the threadstarter. Forgive him, he tends to get very excited when he thinks h
41 Rheinbote : I fail to spot any word on GTFs there. They may just be talking about the Tech56 insertion package.[Edited 2007-01-13 20:14:46]
42 Slz396 : Your guess is as good as mine really, which is what makes these kind of discussions on what exactly is meant with these cryptic words so interesting,
43 Zvezda : What you added was precision that is not available. For the sake of clarity, I'll use another example. Suppose we were talking about a very rough est
44 Zeke : Is Tech56 the same as the Leap56 ?
45 Slz396 : Who's assuming things for which he hasn't any proof, now? In fact; 6.6, 6.66 or even 6.66666666666% is still less precise than 1/15th, but don't let
46 Rheinbote : It is my understanding that the Leap56 technology program is aimed at a CFM56 successor. My fingers typed Tech56 when I was thinking about a technolo
47 DEVILFISH : A reminder lest everybody get so ahead of themselves, that US Government involvement in the IHPTET programme would mean that American companies are th
48 Art : Sorry, but I don't know about the IHPTET program. I guess from the main content of this thread (A320 may get a new engine that can't be used on 737)
49 Atmx2000 : You might be able to play some games with cash flow if you can delay payments to suppliers, but in the end the profit is what matters. And given the
50 Art : Fair enough. Any idea what the following means then?
51 Atmx2000 : I think it is means what it sounds like, but that isn't going to happen. I'm not sure if the US government has ever prevented Airbus from benefiting
52 DEVILFISH : It only means that American companies, even if perceived as not ready, would likely be first to know of any breakthrough. Strictly a personal opinion
53 Mham001 : Several keep proclaiming this new engine will not fit on the 737. If so, how do you explain this?
54 Zvezda : One can fit a 777 engine under the wing of the 747 for testing purposes, but not for operations.
55 Sabenapilot : And rightfully so: It won't. That's because people don't understand what they read and wrongly think the GTF technology demonstrator which will fly a
56 Post contains links Sabenapilot : Just to back up all the above, because I know it is just a matter of time before somebody asks: from the most recent Flight International article rega
57 Mham001 : On the flip side, if this engine is really good, it could spur Boeing to develop its next generation that much sooner. Not what Airbus wants to hear a
58 Zeke : Wonder if this power plant could see its way onto the 342/343 and KC135 ?
59 Rheinbote : Well, you quote me out of context. My message was: 1) The alleged quick-win GTF, based on the PW6000, as brought into play by Slz396 would not be lim
60 Zvezda : Sorry, no. Two points. First, the demonstrator that will be fitted to a 737 is much smaller than the production model that might be developed for the
61 Post contains images Sabenapilot : You're assuming Airbus is thinking of an A320 with a "quick-win PW6000 based GTF engine". Just for your information: There will be NO "quick-win PW60
62 Zvezda : Even this technology demonstrator will probably fit on a 737 only on an experimental basis. I very much doubt there would be enough clearance for com
63 Post contains images Rheinbote : Heck, no! Please stop misreading my posts. That's what Slz396 assumed and what I tried to dispel. i.e. it's a demo engine and even if it would be use
64 Sabenapilot : You are most probably correct on that indeed. I haven't bothered to look up the external dimensions of the PW6000 engine nor the maximum under wing c
65 Sabenapilot : Seems like I was not the only one misreading your posts then, as Zvezda and Mham001 too had understood it the way I did... BTW, I certainly didn't re
66 Art : Assuming that the gearbox works, when might a new engine using this technology become available? 2011 onwards is surely too late for an A320E, isn't
67 Zvezda : I don't think 2011 would be too late. Both the A320 and 737 have order backlogs out to 2011. It's difficult to imagine Y1/737RS entering service befo
68 Sabenapilot : Looking at the 787, it is a safe bet Y1 too will EIS with its mid-size model ONLY, yet all the larger, smaller or longer range versions will have an
69 Zvezda : I agree. I expect Airbus will look at whatever engines are developed for Y1 and certify at least one of them for the A320.
70 Baroque : This GTF stuff is fascinating but while it is being argued about, Airbus would have time to completely redesign the A32x let alone make some enhanceme
71 Stitch : I expect the most likely customer for a GTF-powered "A320E" would be new operators like Skybus and Air Asia, who don't have huge fleets of CFM- or IA
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...
Any New BA Routes In The Pipeline? posted Fri Dec 1 2006 18:27:32 by BA787
More CRJ900 Orders In The Pipeline posted Wed Oct 4 2006 17:09:11 by Flying-Tiger
In The Middle Of Nowhere For No Reason! posted Fri Mar 12 2004 18:44:30 by QM001
Lufthansa Regional In The Pipeline? posted Tue Oct 8 2002 16:19:32 by Flying-Tiger
PTVs In Y: Are They Worth It For The Airlines? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 20:14:50 by MaverickM11
Get Ready For Fun In The Midwest posted Thu Nov 30 2006 16:49:44 by Csturdiv
Jetways Used For The Classic Props Back In The Day posted Sun Nov 12 2006 08:12:31 by Zippyjet
Internships For Biz Student In The Air Industry posted Sun Oct 1 2006 13:19:35 by Bambicruz
Kalitta Air - Any Plans For 744F's In The Future? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 23:16:03 by Maiznblu_757
WN In The Market For Used 737-700'sl posted Sat Jul 22 2006 00:01:04 by Dbba