Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus: Open Rotor A320-replacement Prior 2025  
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 25053 times:

Sorry, the source is again in German (closer sources are often written in one of the EADS languages but tend to catch more news):
http://www.ftd.de/unternehmen/indust...eues-flugzeugkonzept/70041830.html

Summary:
- Open Rotor trial flights on an A340 would be realistic in 2016

- The on-going A30X project would draw benefit from those tests

- An Open Rotor A320 replacement could be launched with EIS between 2020-2025.

- Rotor size: about 4.2 meters. So the configuration would require fuselage mounted engines.

- Time from launch to EIS: 7 years


Other interesting news:
- A new laminar flow wing mounted on an A340 testbed could fly in 2014 and bring 10% fuel reduction.

- There is a pressure to bring new technologies quicker on the market than today. Certification efforts have become too much of a burden.

- A reserach center in Bangalore will be established to catch the Asian spirit and ideas for future programs.

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3884 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24935 times:

Why are propfans suddenly called 'open rotors'?    Helicopters have open rotors.


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24844 times:

I wonder if it will look anything like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo0Rp6TQPXo



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24824 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
Summary:
- Open Rotor trial flights on an A340 would be realistic in 2016

- The on-going A30X project would draw benefit from those tests

- An Open Rotor A320 replacement could be launched with EIS between 2020-2025.

- Rotor size: about 4.2 meters. So the configuration would require fuselage mounted engines.

- Time from launch to EIS: 7 years

Do the engine manufacturers have anything to say about this? Because that might be a little bit important at some point.

Furthermore, it is hard to read the partnership of Rolls-Royce with Pratt and Whitney on the GTF as anything other than a tacit admission that open rotor will not be ready in the near future.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24497 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
The on-going A30X project

Is this a new narrowbody or something else?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
Do the engine manufacturers have anything to say about this?

I'm guessing that RR, for one, will not be displeased.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
A reserach center in Bangalore will be established to catch the Asian spirit and ideas for future programs.

I'm moving to Bangalore in seven weeks. Looking forward to lots of aerospace activity!   


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3364 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24406 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
The on-going A30X project

Is this a new narrowbody or something else?

It's the new build NB plane, I think that they've also called it the NSR

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...irbus-outlined-future-a30x-co.html


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 24406 times:

Here is another 2 examples of 'future aircraft'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKncIxPZIHQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGBLRNrZN1U&feature=related

There were examples of Boeing patent designs posted not long ago on this forum.Again they were very similar (an extra small tail on the fuse as I recall for blade out/noise reasons.
However all the designs have roughfully come to the same conclusion of 3 lifting surfaces,FSW and double (triple) tails with or.Lower cruising speeds with thicker laminar flow wings.BUT

The NEO and MAX have now been launched. They will want at least a 15 year production run,there is no real competitive pressure, so I don't see it happening in the time frame suggested.


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1002 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 24195 times:

Sounds like a sonic cruiser type of lead in.

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23587 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
Do the engine manufacturers have anything to say about this? Because that might be a little bit important at some point.

This is true of course (if flight tests should start in 2016). The article mentions ongoing discussion between RR, Safran and Airbus.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
Furthermore, it is hard to read the partnership of Rolls-Royce with Pratt and Whitney on the GTF as anything other than a tacit admission that open rotor will not be ready in the near future.

And the article is an open announcement that the open rotor could be ready for flight test in 4 years and ready for operation in 8 - 13 years. Possibly your interpretation (which was shared by me until yesterday) has to be revised.

B.t.w. Boeing killed the 7J7 in 1987 not because the prop-fan would not have been ready in the near future (at that time!), but because the pressure due to high fuel prices was gone.


User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23498 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 8):
the pressure due to high fuel prices was gone.


And the noise problem..


User currently onlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23429 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
Furthermore, it is hard to read the partnership of Rolls-Royce with Pratt and Whitney on the GTF as anything other than a tacit admission that open rotor will not be ready in the near future.

Maybe you could look at it like that or maybe (this is my view) pratt realised that the GTF is only the short term solution and needs longer terma cash flow which they see getting from the open rotor while RR didn't want to lose narrow body revenue in the medium term.

Fred


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23211 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
- Rotor size: about 4.2 meters. So the configuration would require fuselage mounted engines.

Wow...that's gonna put the engine centerline about 8' away from the fuselage...that's a loooooong strut. This seems like a great application for the HondaJet over-wing style mounting.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 8):
And the article is an open announcement that the open rotor could be ready for flight test in 4 years and ready for operation in 8 - 13 years.

The A350 and 787 didn't face nearly open rotor level configuration/engine issues and they still took more than 8 years to get to operation from conception...I don't see this one going faster, even if they commit today.

Tom.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11922 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23116 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 7):
Sounds like a sonic cruiser type of lead in.

There aren't too many similarities.

SC was about burning fuel to go faster, OR is about saving fuel and going slower.

SC came out of nowhere, OR has decades of research behind it.

SC claimed to have launch customers lined up (IIRC it was AA, no?), OR is about using a testbed to prove out a technology.

Quoting 76er (Reply 9):
And the noise problem..

To me, the biggest problem is safety, in particular the blade failure scenarios.

Second is market acceptance: will the fuel burn savings be enough to make it so customers accept longer flights?

Third is community acceptance, i.e. the noise issue.

I'm also told a variable pitch mechanism is desired, and doing this is challenging.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 551 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23005 times:

How can this possibly make sense in light of the NEO? Airbus has over 1,000 orders for a plane that they will render outdated in under 10 years?

User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22842 times:

To me this is the really interesing tidbit:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
- A new laminar flow wing mounted on an A340 testbed could fly in 2014 and bring 10% fuel reduction.

Any more information on this? A new wing for the A330/340 family? Or some other target just being flown on an A340?

If this happens for the A330 and gives a 10% reduction + the additional reductions from the engine optimisations being talked about for the A330 sound VERY interesting indeed. That would make the A330 a tough competitor for the 787 and sound like killing off the 350-800?

Or am I missing something?


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22141 times:

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 13):
How can this possibly make sense in light of the NEO? Airbus has over 1,000 orders for a plane that they will render outdated in under 10 years?

OR and A320 could live together very well for decades. OR means lower speed and that is optimized for distances below 1000 or 1500 miles, while the NEO we know to be targeted for a range extended compared to the current A320s - where OR slower speed would really start to make a difference.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22091 times:

This sounds a lot like the 1980s GE-36-UDF, P&W/Allison-578-DX, Progress D-27, and the RR RB-3011 programs. The GE-36 actually flew demo flights at the FAS aboard an MD-81 demo aircraft, and flew flight testing in the US aboard a B-727.

The GE-36 was chosen to power both the B-7J7 and the MD-94X, both programs were canceled.

The Progress D-27 is available on the An-70.

The TP-400 and NK-12 are turboprops, not UDFs.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21971 times:

Quoting nasula (Reply 14):
Any more information on this? A new wing for the A330/340 family? Or some other target just being flown on an A340?

Airbus use their A340 testbeds for all kinds of weird and wonderful stuff, and just because whatever it is they're testing is hanging off, or is bolted on to, a A340/330 family aircraft doesn't mean that's where it's going to end up. If Airbus are going to bring laminar-flow anything (wings sounds a tad ambitious) to the market, they'll probably do it on their newest and shiniest - why sink the money into the old dog, when there's a new one on the block with a hefty R&D bill in need of servicing?

The A330 will receive minor dusting offs from now on. No new engines, no new wings, no new primary structures. But a properly directed bit of polishing can gain those incremental 1.5 or 1.6% that'll keep the sun shining for a bit longer on the old girl.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As they're off the A320neo and 737 MAX, Rolls-Royce has a seriously vested interest in making Open Rotor work for the Airbus NSR and Boeing NSA because it's their way back onto the most important part of the commercial aviation market (just as the GTF was Pratt's).

I think 2025 might be a bit ambitious, but we shall see.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21482 times:

The A340 has the necessary ground clearance for testing such an engine, whereas the A320 would be too low.


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21284 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
Certification efforts have become too much of a burden.

OEM's spend too much time in the cert process helping the regulators along, educating them in order to avoid the inevitable conservatism which results from not understanding how a design works. Delegated authority was intended to help this, but when someone at the ACO overrides the DER because they have failed to grasp the underlying design, the OEM has little choice but to take their top talent away from designing and turn them into teachers. Worse yet, the education process is not always successful, causing redesign or unwarranted constraints on the design. The cumulative impact of this happening hundreds of times over the course of a program is absolutely crippling. I agree 100% with Airbus on this point - it is something they are undoubtedly struggling through with the A350 at this moment.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 19802 times:

Re the agreement PW and RR if I am not mistaken it is for "future geared engine technology" or something to that meaning. An open rotor really needs a good gear technology, me think PW and RR have covered both bases with this agreement, not just the shrouded fan case   .


Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19405 times:

Quoting nasula (Reply 14):
If this happens for the A330 and gives a 10% reduction +

They're not going to fit a laminar flow wing to the A330 in production. Laminar flow would be relofting the wing. That would probably mean a new static test and would certainly mean new flutter and stability and control testing, as well as requiring all new wing tooling. There's no way that business case closes.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
An open rotor really needs a good gear technology

Not necessarily; some of the prototype open rotors back in the 80's were direct drive off the turbines with no gearing.

Tom.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19115 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 22):
some of the prototype open rotors back in the 80's were direct drive off the turbines with no gearing.

Would that type of open rotor also be the most promising type? Or are gearboxes to be expected?


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18512 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 23):
Would that type of open rotor also be the most promising type? Or are gearboxes to be expected?

Assuming the noise from a open-rotor engine can be solved at all, gearing the fan seems almost certain. The direct drive UDF engines tested 20 years ago by GE/Boeing were exceedingly loud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxVAa...IY&feature=player_detailpage#t=92s

The open-rotor engines tested by PW/McDonnell-Douglas used geared rotors which were quieter (but still very loud by today's standards) and much heavier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BMNaXc1rL8

In either case, the forthcoming Stage 5 noise requirements are likely to represent a huge barrier to entry for using this technology versus current high bypass ratio engines which are many dB quieter, yet have little margin against the new Stage 5 noise requirements.


25 JoeCanuck : The EU especially is going ape about the least bit of airline noise...the open rotor is DOA. The closest we'll see is perhaps a ducted contra rotating
26 Stitch : GE claims the GE36 UDF did meet Stage III noise limits, but it was still a fair bit louder than a turbofan both inside and outside the aircraft. As su
27 Roseflyer : It looks like Airbus is continuing to do investment in new technology. That’s no surprise. I am glad to see propfans get more attention. With fuel p
28 Semaex : One thing I wonder is: I hear talks about those OR designs using counter-rotating propellers for efficiency purposes - but aren't they by laws of phys
29 tdscanuck : Personally, I expect a gearbox. The big advantage of the gearbox-less designs was...the lack of gearbox. But now that P&W has proven you can do a
30 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Everyone should remember an unshrouded fan has a lower optimal cruise mach number than a shrouded fan. Just to be clear, the openrotor is an unshroude
31 bikerthai : Which makes me want to ask . . . Ever since GE introduced the composite fan blade in the GE90 for the 777, have there ever been an incident of blade
32 rampart : What advantage or disadvantage is there with 8 ft of strut above a wing (a scaled up Hondajet) or 8 ft of strut out the side of the aft fuselage (I'm
33 r2rho : Airbus has long been interested in OR for the A30X, however a while ago they deemed the techonology immature today, while at the same time being impre
34 BMI727 : You'd have a pretty hard time getting a new airframe with today's state of the art flying in 8 years, let alone with a change as big as open rotor en
35 XT6Wagon : I honestly think its only hope to get past regulators is to approch it from "advanced turboprop" direction instead of "green turbofan". Blade out and
36 fcogafa : Why is the risk of that different to a Dash 8 or ATR today? Another problem with this proposal is passenger resistance to props, as they are seen as
37 XT6Wagon : Well thats why I think its a total mistake to only mention the 737/A320 or that market in everything you say about the planes for these open rotor en
38 Post contains images lightsaber : They will in effect be different markets just as the Q400 compliments the CR7/9. The slower cruise speed of the open rotor won't matter on the 1 hour
39 tdscanuck : No failure due to any blade/engine issues. Blades have been replaced due to FOD damage (bird strikes and so on) but I don't believe one has ever actu
40 Post contains images Semaex : Do open-rotors or propfans run faster than props mounted on a Dash-8 or an Avanti, or where does this fear come from? Besides, if the propellers are
41 tom355uk : Just like a Q400?? I can't believe that no one has seriously considered a 120 seat turboprop - or have they and we just haven't heard about it? These
42 KC135TopBoom : Actually, to get accurate inflight test readings, they will probably mount the 'wing' as a canard, or something on their test bed A-340. The 'wing' w
43 Post contains images lightsaber : There is some. But the higher speed will prevail. Ok, bad analogy as the open rotor is significantly faster than a turboprop. Take a CF34 with triple
44 Post contains links Revelation : Seems you and Tom were writing at the same time, see his #39 for the answer. I can guarantee you I would not want to be in an ATR if it had a prop bl
45 rampart : OK, how about a ducted prop? Why are ducted props limited so far to blimps, RC aircraft, and the occasional experimental homebuilt? Perhaps it would
46 DocLightning : I'd wager that the propellers on a Brazilia are just as dangerous. If anything, these are less dangerous because they will be mounted aft of anything
47 lightsaber : That's a GTF. Seriously. The advantage of an open rotor is: 1. Weight (no duct/shroud) 2. Larger fan (due to drag/weight optimization shifting to a g
48 dfwrevolution : Because airlines/airports consistently find work-arounds for ground facilities when there are substantial economic gains offered by an inconvenient d
49 XT6Wagon : The only way I can see it is if they are mounted pusher with no critical systems inline with the fan. Bonus points if you put them 2-3 degrees off ax
50 Post contains images GAIsweetGAI : In the standard slightly-ahead-of-the-wing configuration, you do have a huge stator right behind the fan. (Although I'd tend to agree if you say that
51 davs5032 : Couldn't a canard be designed to fold up @ the gate rather easily? (I know nothing about their design, but would think this could be done given their
52 XT6Wagon : easier to cantilever the gate so the canard goes under the gate arm. Much cheaper to put the money and wieght into the gate than the planes[Edited 20
53 trent1000 : Wouldn't such mounted fans suffer more from bird strike than engines now? Any fan blade separation would be uncontained, possible affecting the other
54 gigneil : So can someone educate me on how often a turboprop actually throws an entire blade? NS
55 DocLightning : Gate spacing is relatively easy to fix with respect to coming up with an entire new design for a jetramp that can dip under the canard.
56 gigneil : This i can answer. Apparently, technically a propfan is defined as an direct drive engine. However, there's no reason at all why the GTF's gearbox co
57 Revelation : According to stuff already posted, you'll lose that wager. The open rotor blades are just a lot bigger and spin a lot faster, and no one has come up
58 BMI727 : Who's going to design and build it? For that matter, if Airbus had really thought that open rotor would be ready in the early 2020s, they wouldn't ha
59 DocLightning : If the rotors are mounted way aft on the fueslage, then it can be arranged that no such structures are located aft of the rotor. Unless the aircraft
60 Post contains images lightsaber : It would be tough, but possible. However, Airbus would have to drop one of their current projects. Obvioulsy the NEO and the A350 variations will go
61 Burkhard : If Airbus now considers an EIS in 2025, we know that even 2027 is optimistic once reality steps in. What about the Air Canada 77W a few days ago?
62 jporterfi : This seems like a really interesting concept. However, it seems to be very expensive to develop, and the cost of it may offset fuel savings. I hope th
63 Post contains images sturmovik : Something like the Tu-144, perhaps? The purpose there was different (canards folded up in flight, as opposed to on the ramp), though, and I don't bel
64 DocLightning : So I don't understand why Mr. Sutter seems to be unable to come up with safety solutions that Embraer and Saab came up with decades ago. This is like
65 N14AZ : Stupid question of mine: could it be that Airbus is just talking about this plans right now because of tactical reasons?
66 XT6Wagon : Risks acceptable yesterday are not acceptable today. For example the doors on a 737 couldn't be certified on a new design plane. Turboprops are grand
67 flipdewaf : I don't kow if I'm just being stupid here but I know what a turbojet is and i know what a turbofan is and I know what a turboprop is but the open roto
68 DocLightning : So how did the Q400 get certified?
69 tom355uk : This is the way I see it (as explained above in response to my earlier question). More accurately, I'm seeing a small turbofan core (CF34 was mention
70 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for your reply and the links you have placed in your post. Thank you as well Tom. Not only for this reply, but for so many good posts you have
71 tdscanuck : In the sense that they're bigger, so have more area to hit, yes. But the blades will necessarily be stronger (since they don't have containment) so w
72 flyglobal : As far as I know, there is some 'green Planet' research money from EU looking into new fuel efficient engine programs. Talking about a 2025 plan for
73 bikerthai : But the construction/cross section of an open rotor would be much different than a prop or a fan for that matter. Where as a prop is have a narrow co
74 SEPilot : The danger of a blade loss is not just the danger of a loose blade damaging something else, it is the guarantee that with the departure of a blade th
75 Post contains links rheinwaldner : The 7J7 was drafted to undercut A320 fuel burn per seat by 50%. I can tell you, for these kind of incentives airlines would sacrifice anything else..
76 Post contains links and images Revelation : Very interesting and informative thread! Wow, Doc, your ability to go into total geek mode is impressive! Because on paper it is a DHC-8-400, just lik
77 SEPilot : But that was a turboprop, not an OR. I suspect that with an OR it would depart because of the much higher rotational speed, and hence the much higher
78 bikerthai : Yes but don't you have to figure the total amount of rotational inertial when predicting whether or not a nacelle will deform or depart. With a 4 pro
79 SEPilot : But the much higher speed makes the forces that much higher-that is the problem. I believe that the force goes up by the square of the speed. That is
80 Post contains links Revelation : Time to be the devil's advocate... Indeed but above we estimate the inertia magnitude to be 10x the turboprop, and the lateral forces exerted on the e
81 PW100 : Correct. Although not a direct conclusive answer This is a very good summary: Correct. From a certification point of view, in-flight propeller blade
82 Post contains links and images DocLightning : I try. So what you are saying is that no new turboprop will ever be certified again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_5 Admitte
83 tdscanuck : It might go slightly supersonic at takeoff (turbofans do this now) but that's not the point. The modern swept scimitar blades can go faster (same rea
84 DocLightning : Turbofans have a shroud that contains the shockwaves. If the tip speeds cannot be made subsonic, then the OR may be a non-starter after all.
85 packsonflight : Airbus strategy could be to create small aircraft like 100- 120 seater that sits right above turboprop territory to exist initially parallel to the 32
86 Post contains links speedygonzales : That's called a Kuznetsov NK-93: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/engines/nk-93.html
87 Post contains links and images affirmative : Not having read up on the technology. Are the OR engines considered free turbines or are the fans bolted on the outside of the turbine stage? I like t
88 Post contains images lightsaber : While I like the design 1. It assumes electrical power transmission at weights below current technology. 2. While long term, I believe the trend will
89 affirmative : Can you really compare the GTF with, what I would call ducted fan engines, the NK-93? The NK-93 is more similar to the OR studies with dual counter r
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...
Airbus May Not Do A320 Replacement Alone posted Tue Jul 3 2007 02:32:05 by Elvis777
Airbus A320 Replacement posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:36:05 by WingedMigrator
Airbus To Launch A320 NEO Wednesday (1.Dec) posted Tue Nov 30 2010 14:07:07 by Eaa3
Airbus To Increase A320 Production To 40/month posted Fri Jul 30 2010 01:11:27 by Centre
A320 Replacement Delayed To 2027? posted Fri Jun 11 2010 06:41:37 by LAXDESI
Will Airbus Open 2nd Assembly Line For A380? posted Tue May 11 2010 09:20:24 by Sjoerd
No Clean Sheet A320 Replacement Pre 2024 -JL posted Thu Sep 17 2009 10:11:00 by Art
Airbus Might Replace A320 Series By 2 Types posted Wed Sep 2 2009 03:10:26 by Keesje
B737 And A320 Replacement posted Sat Nov 29 2008 18:54:38 by Dkramer7
Possible 737/A320 Replacement? posted Sun Nov 23 2008 11:01:31 by EBJ1248650