VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
Flyingbronco - don't forget who was the first to offer a widebodied twinjet, and the first to offer a twin and a quad using the same wing... Sorry, but the argument holds little water.
Regardless, I think you are all making an issue out of a non-issue - the point is Airbus is reported to be looking at a new aircraft for the market sector currently occupied by the 757 and 767 (and yes, the A300/A310).
Lets see if we can rescue this thread a bit and pull it back on track - I wonder what the possibility is of a wing design that Airbus can mate either to a longer A32x fuselage, or a shorter widebody fuselage. I know the centre section would be different between the narrow and wide bodies, but otherwise, they could use the same wing. Hey presto: a longer range (or a larger) narrow body, and a shorter range widebody...
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20895 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
I´d guess for a shorter widebody. Keeping at least some kind of commonality with the 330/340 seems very tempting. Boeing´s mess with 5 different fuselage types across 6 separate aircraft families doesn´t look like something to be repeated...
But I agree, at this time they´re just telling their customers they´ll match anything Bowing might come up with, so customers´ long-term strategies should still go with Airbus. Not much more than making public noises, so far.
Still the first time I´ve heard Airbus say anything about replacing the 300/310...
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7709 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1173 times:
My guess is that Airbus may be working on what amounts to a Next Generation A300B.
Imagine sometthing about the size of an A300B1 or A300B2 but with a tail derived from the A330, an all-new wing, and new technology engines. Now imagine the plane powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 556 or 560 engines, and that's the plane Airbus may be working on.
Would LH buy such a plane? I think they'll buy it in a New York minute. Especially now that LH has chosen the Trent 870 for the A380-800, they could easily buy the A300NG with Trent 556 or 560 engines.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1127 times:
>>>My guess is that Airbus may be working on what amounts to a Next Generation A300B.
Imagine sometthing about the size of an A300B1 or A300B2 but with a tail derived from the A330, an all-new wing, and new technology engines. Now imagine the plane powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 556 or 560 engines, and that's the plane Airbus may be working on.<<<
I heard Airbus approached FDX a couple years back with such an idea. Essentially an upgraded A300 with FBW. I'm not sure what became of this.
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1110 times:
747-451 --And I agree that a new "A300/310" replacement would benefit greatly by utilizing technology/airframe components with the A330/340.
I think it'd be a big project (i.e., new airframe), and so probably at least two variants planned for, right from the start, like say 2-class capacities of ~220 passengers and ~260, . And a widebody interior--I figure anything over 200 passengers would pretty much have to be from a marketing standpoint, not just to distinguish it sufficiently from the A321 but also make it desirable for thinner transoceanic service. Possibly even 2-3-2 seating à la 767, which I think would be real nice indeed
I'd say at least another eighteen months or so -- just around the time the A380 is hopefully about to take to the skies-- before they'll announce something definitive about what they're going to do.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1108 times:
Though the article is indeed interesting, I think common sense has prevailed long before and any Boeing move to create such a successor to the 7 5-6 7 family will surely be opposed by an Airbus offering.
The only thing that was nice to read was "Airbus does not believe Boeing is committed to building its proposed high-speed, long-range Sonic Cruiser, Leahy said. The Sonic Cruiser likely is a "PR stunt" to mask its true aim of developing a new-generation replacement for the 757/767, he said."
How long are we going to keep going with tube with wings?
Maybe it could be 4 - 4 8 abreast seating. A 1.5 aisle aircraft instead of a narrow/widebody.
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1079 times:
Singapore Air -- How long are we going to keep going with tube with wings?
You might not wanna hear this, Singapore Air, but... very probably for a big chunk of the rest of anyone's life, around here on this forum (gonna be at least twenty years or so --technology willing-- before things like flying wings --or saucers, or whatever-- step in to replace 'the standard config' that's being used now.
Maybe it could be 4 - 4 8 abreast seating. A 1.5 aisle aircraft instead of a narrow/widebody.
Oh you mean maybe something like a theatre or concert hall I don't know, I don't think folks at or one-seat-away-from the windows would put up with that, for very long (unless the seats and in-between-space were huge but in which case what's the point, may as well go with a twin-aisle instead).
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1062 times:
Right now would be the perfect time to launch a 757/767 successor. Airbus has it's plate pretty full right now with the A380. They would be stretching resources thin if they were to launch a new aircraft at this point. That and their checking account.
9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1782 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1037 times:
What the market needs now is 200-250 seater . B777 is too big while B767 is kind of old in technology . A330-200s has been selling like hotcakes as Boeing does not have any planes currently to compete with A330-200 , B767-400ER maybe ?
I feel that the Boeing Sonic cruiser will not solve the problem for replacement of B757/B767s . They should come up with a brand new design which directly competes with A330-200s ( i am a big A330 fan through ).
ATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1362 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1000 times:
767-200/300 technology isnt any more modern than that of the A300-600R and 310. Theire technology is old but it isnt that old they still use some modern components. The 310 does not compete with the 757 which some people seem to think, to different segments.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 965 times:
Faster. Faster. Faster.
Sorry, but the wheel needs re-invented. It's the 21st Century people. Remember orbiting hotels, cities on the moon, the Pan Am rocket to space stations? Jeezus, whatever happened to imagination? A lot of you people would have us flying the same twin engined pencils from now until the end of time. If all you're doing is looking to perfect a hull to put new and better avionics and entertainment systems in, my advice is buy a portable DVD player and some cough syrup. Cause you're still gonna be fartin around for hours upon hours up there.
Cmchardyfl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2002, 175 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 941 times:
All Airbus needs to do is shrink the A330-200. They have already talked about such an aircraft, possibly called the A330-100. Smaller than the A300, but slightly larger than the A310. That would be the perfect plane that would fit nicely in the 757-767 category. I believe an A330-100 would sell like hotcakes.
I know there is slightly more to it than just shrinking the fuselage, but Airbus already has the components and the technology to build such a plane relatively quickly.
I can't remember exactly where I read the article about a possible A330-100, but I believe there was a short one in Airliner World.
Anyway that's my thoughts. Contrary to my thoughts however, if Airbus saw the demand for an aircraft such as the A330-100, I would have thought such a project would already be well underway.
B20XX From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 39 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 927 times:
The smaller A330 that Airbus has talked about for a while is the A330-500 (don't know why they picked up -500 instead of -100). Airbus may still launch it but I read a few time that its problem it that it is too heavy. (same reason Boeing shelved the B777-100: shrink tends to be too heavy).
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 915 times:
Faster. Faster. Faster.
I empathise, believe me (I was caught up in that Pan-Am 2001Blue Danube and boots were made for walkin' mystique too. I remember building Revell models of the Boeing SST, fer cryin' out loud ) . I don't mind pushing --and allocating resources -- for getting new and imaginative projects underway. Just that.. well sheesh you probably see yourself, lots of problems still around and not really that much money --or will-- to cope with it, either. So folks are going to have to sort out priorities, even though that might not be such a fun thing, to see pointed out.
A lot of you people would have us flying the same twin engined pencils from now until the end of time. If all you're doing is looking to perfect a hull to put new and better avionics and entertainment systems in, my advice is buy a portable DVD player and some cough syrup.
Okay Heav,-- fair 'nuff and again I hear what you're sayin'-- just let's see wha' happens with the SC project though, deal? (because I guess that'll be a real bellwether of where things are gonna be headed pioneerwise in the industry, for at least the next ten/fifteen years or so).
Cause you're still gonna be fartin around for hours upon hours up there.
I feel the need for speed.
Is it just to go fast and that's that, 'cause if so, maybe negotiate a good seat deal on Concorde or even maybe those freelancing MiG-29 pilot-sponsored joyrides if they're still doing that kind of thing these days, then just sit back and drink in -- because... barring that or a Dennis Tito-type ride into space, you're not gonna get it, least not anytime soon. And otherwise, where are you in such a hurry to fly to, anyway?
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 904 times:
B20XX Airbus may still launch it but I read a few time that its problem it that it is too heavy.
Yeah (just look at the A318's drawbacks, for instance, evidence of this albeit on a smaller scale), so I figure it would have to be a new --and big-- project with a new airframe entirely, except maintaining the usual great deal of cockpit commonality with the rest of the product line.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2667 posts, RR: 59 Reply 25, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 904 times:
I'm 99.9% sure you will never see Airbus build the A330-500X nor Boeing the 777-100X. These airplanes are simply not economical. For the A330, it has already been shrunk once to the -200. That is an amazing aircraft, which occured because the wing was optimized for the -300, and therefore had inherent capacity for a small shrink with increased range. However, double-shrinking an airframe, and trying to market it for regional routes, simply does not work. Hence the reason no one wants the A318. Of course, you'll always get a customer who needs a long-range aircraft with a small capacity (long thin routes), but these will be few and far between.
With the proposed 777-100X, you had a slightly different approach, but the same result. Until the A380, Boeing and Airbus had a different philosophy when designing their aircraft. Boeing has always built their wings with inherent growth built in. They design the wing from the outset with plans to eventually stretch the aircraft, which would then optimize wing performance. Thus, you get a high-performance longer-range base model, with the ability to easily stretch the airframe for more capacity (see 767-200 to -300, 777-200 to -300). At Airbus, the idea was always to optimize the wing configuration for the particular model they had in mind. Thus, a simple shrink down the road has never been a problem, but a stretch has always run into limitations when trying to use the same wing. That's why the A320 and especially the A319 are such great performers, but the A321 is only so-so with recent improvements finally satisfying its range limitations. That's also why the A330-200 is such a great aircraft, but the A340NG program cost $3.5 billion, while Boeing only spent @ $1 billion on the 777LR program.
Getting back to the 777-100X, and keeping in mind what I just said, you see that the aircraft would be overly built, employing way too much weight for the missions it would be intended for.