D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1190 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.
COboeing777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1177 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.
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1138 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?
Il75 From Argentina, joined May 2001, 261 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
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?
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1103 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.