Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Airbus Trijets Built...?  
User currently offlineBaec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 2
Posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1474 times:

Can anyones tell me if Airbus will build any trijet, naming it as "Airbus 370" ...??

Rolls Royce engines can be best for that plane if Airbus plans any Tri-jet style plane .... We Don't Know Exactly Yet....

Baec777  Big thumbs up

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11155 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1451 times:

Airbus will not build any tri-jets on a conventional airframe. Tri-jets are inherently uneconomical because they require very heavy, strong structure to support the third engine. Notice that all current tri-jets are being retired in the near future.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineCOboeing777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 693 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1438 times:

you will never see any more tri jets comes from either Boeing or Airbus. The only reason trijets were built was because in the first place was because they were heralded as being more economical than quad engined planes(namely the 747). This was before the world of ETOPS so obviously now a twin jet is more economical and can fly routes over water that it never could.

User currently offlineBaec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1435 times:

Thank you, I shouldnt have made up a topic on airbus building trijets.... way old type planes....  Sad

Baec777  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineCOboeing777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 693 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1429 times:

no no no Baec777, dont say that. Remember, there is no such thing as a stupid question; just stupid people who ask questions  Smile

User currently offlineBaec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1425 times:

are you sure about that...?

Baec777  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11155 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1411 times:

"are you sure about that...? "

Well, I always thought that there was no stupid question. Only stupid answers.  Smile

Keep on asking them!



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBaec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1407 times:

Im not asking again.. I was just making sure if I wasnt asking stupid questions.. thats all

Baec777  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1399 times:

The entire philosophy behind the Airbus movement in the 1970s was geared towards a widebody twin and the cost savings it signified during the oil crises of that time. The A300 was a huge breakthrough in that context. Similarly, the A310 was the first aircraft to gain ETOPS approval as a longhaul widebody. The only reason Airbus even has the A340 is to be able to play the ETOPS 207 card against the Boeing 777. If you look at the entire Airbus line, their only product that is below contemporary engineering standards is the A340 - their only non-twinjet product. Any Airbus attempt to develop a trijet would go counter to the bedrock principles they have built their engineering on, namely the design that makes the most sense from an economic (and now environmental) standpoint.

Additionally, with the advent of ETOPS and LROPS, the need for a trijet has now disappeared. You don't need a third engine for safety purposes and you don't need it for the thrust. So why throw in an extra variable, when the equation has already been solved for you?



User currently offlineRAAFController From Australia, joined May 2001, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

Since there are no stupid questions, what is the 'ETOPS 207 card' ie whay did Airbus need the 4 engined A340 against the B777?

Sorry for the ignorance.

Cheers,

dave


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

RAAFController -

I think this site explains Airbus' position on the ETOPS 207 issue best.

http://www1.airbus.com/products/A330-A340_etops.asp


User currently offlineIl75 From Argentina, joined May 2001, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1374 times:

Hi,

B747, would you mind developing your thougts about
"If you look at the entire Airbus line, their only product that is below contemporary engineering standards is the A340 - their only non-twinjet product"?
I followed you regarding Airbus original concept but: does it mean that the company is not able to build a state-of-the-art quad?
I am not a fan of the A340 at all but I never thought of that plane as less "modern" than other new aircrafts. Or is it just that the whole idea of four engined aircrafts is all fashioned?

Best regards
Erico


User currently offlineRAAFController From Australia, joined May 2001, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1368 times:

Thanks for that B747-437B.

Now one more question for you....where did the 207 minutes come from? It sounds like a very arbitary number. i mean, why not 200, or 210 mins?

Also, why do you feel the A340 is not as contemporary/up to date etc?

Dave


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1364 times:

II75 - The A340-200/300 is an afterthought to the A330 design. It uses the same fuselage, the same wing and the same avionics, with the only noticeable difference being 4 engines instead of 2. Ironically, the 4 CFM56 engines actually deliver LESS thrust than 2 RR Trents on the A330. The A340 is notoriously underpowered (although the A340-600 will change that) which pegs it below contemporary standards. In other words, what I am trying to say is that the A340 is not a design of its own - but rather a poor and hasty effort to modify the A330 design into a quad.

RAAFController - ETOPS 207 is 180 mins plus 15% leeway. On an atlantic crossing, ETOPS 138 (which is 120 mins plus 15%) is the applicable standard.


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...
Why No Airbus Trijets Built...? posted Wed Jun 27 2001 02:43:15 by Baec777
Why No Airbus Or Boeing RJ? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 05:12:22 by Airbus3801
Ryanair- Why No Airbus A319? posted Sun Feb 13 2005 22:09:00 by Aerlingus330
Why No Airbus Equivalents Of The 757 Or 7E7-3? posted Sun Nov 14 2004 03:15:24 by TransPac
Why No Airbus A340-400? posted Sun Jan 5 2003 03:49:45 by Paulianer
N741AS...Why No Built In Stairs? posted Sun Oct 10 2004 06:49:48 by FlyingNanook
Why No Auto Raising Doors In 777, 747, And Airbus? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 04:47:00 by TrnsWrld
Why No Long Range Airbus For BA? posted Sun Nov 9 2003 13:45:40 by EGFFbmi
Why No Etops Airbus 320? posted Sat Oct 25 2003 16:09:22 by Mcg
Why No A346IGW Info On Airbus.com? posted Thu Aug 28 2003 18:53:58 by ConcordeBoy