Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
using the old 300/310/330/340 fuselage sounds logical: I mean, excluding the A380, Airbus builds 4 families of a/c from 100 to 400 pax with only two diameters. Boeing has 5 families with five different fuselages.
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2149 times:
When it is all said and done, it'll just be two more twinjets that we'll have to distinguish from all the other types out there.
With that said, any time a new aircraft is introduced, it is just another piece of aviation being unfolded before our eyes. I cheer on new A/C from both Airbus and Boeing for this segment.
With these two 200-250 pax long-range A/C on the horizon, and the Sonic Cruiser, it is getting increasingly difficult to see which way long-haul flights are going to sway in the future: Either some flights with 747s, A346s, A380s. . .or smaller A/C, with increased flight frequency.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
TP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 261 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2078 times:
Am I wrong or are we talking 2 completely different designs here?
1. "Short range 200 passengers"
Short range means that speed is irrelevant. New engines are required
for environmental constraints. Refined aerodynamics, but not revolutionary.
could be a stretched 321 with a new wing, or a 310NG featuring a heavily
modified wing and a pair of Trent 500 (or equivalent).
2. "Long range (7000Nm) minimum 250 passengers"
Here the required speed will be of, at least, 0.86 Mach, which means new
aerodynamics (just wing if it stays at the mid 80's) and new engines
(derivatives of Trent 800 or GP7200?). We are looking here at a 332 derivative
with a heavily modified wing as the most probable design. The problem with
that aproach is that speed and quiteness could mean higher fuel consumption
and shorter range...
Design 1. would be a bid to challenge Boeing in the 757 market niche. To me
this would be a BIG mistake by AI. Leave it to Boeing just as Boeing jumped
out of the VLA race. No company has the means to cover all market
Design 2. should be the one pursued by AI. Right now boeing has a head-start
since its workforce is less busy with new designs and has been developing new
tech with the SC project. However AI already has the ideal fuselage
cross-section for this type of aircraft, which would mean they could start by
focusing on the wing's aerodynamics.
B747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
I think Boeing will make a better long range product, but Airbus will make a better short range product. We have seen this already, the B757/767 are much better for long range routes, however, the 310/300 are more suited for short range high density routes.
Wilax From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1883 times:
As far as I can tell, Boeing has no room or need for an all new aircraft in either of these segments. Boeing is already pretty much redundant in capacity, i.e. 767 vs. 753 or 739 vs. 757. any possible "787" would surely overlap unless it is so technologically advanced that it renders the 737/757/767, all of which are still in production, totally obsolete.
Airbus, on the other hand, desperately needs something between 321 and 332 which would have about a 85 pax spread. The question to ask is who would want this plane in greater numbers; carriers with 330/340's seeking smaller aircraft or carriers with 320's seeking to increase capacity. The commonality answer lies therein. Either a 322 or a 329 would suffice. Another way to go would be to basically copy the 767 with a 2-3-2 layout and watch Boeing improve their 767-200 and then things would get really boring. One other option, of course, is a new body which would have to be a twin aisle 2-2-2 setup which would be a boon to frequent or business travelers. I could market that plane with ease, and just imagine the bragging rights that go with it, "We proudly fly the new A350, the plane with no bad seats". One would wonder if that plane could fly economically with all that extra space without seats or cargo in it. It would be a niche market craft at best with the low floor necessary to accommodate headroom enough for two aisles in an aircraft one aisle wider than an A321 and the subsequent loss of cargo space. I however would love the airline that put one of those on my frequently traveled route.