Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Theorically Possible A Twin Engined A380?  
User currently offlineF.pier From Italy, joined Aug 2000, 1524 posts, RR: 9
Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2926 times:

A380 has 4 engines because at the time it was designed available engines weren't enough powerful to make a twin A380 possible.

Now do you think RR, GE, PW (or EA) can build a so powerful engine?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

I think that the aircraft was designed with 4 engines, meaning the wing might have to be re-designed, as well as CofG. I could be wrong though....

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Quoting F.pier (Thread starter):
Now do you think RR, GE, PW (or EA) can build a so powerful engine?

Total installed thrust on an A380 is about 280,000 lbs. Since it's a quad, that means the airplane actually needs 210,000 lbs of thrust to operate safely. That means you'd need a pair of 210,000 thrust engines if you wanted to make it a twin, or almost double the largest engine we've got today.

It's probably technically possible to do such a thing, but I'm pretty sure that nobody would want to. The investment would be enormous.

Quoting Jutes85 (Reply 1):
I think that the aircraft was designed with 4 engines, meaning the wing might have to be re-designed, as well as CofG. I could be wrong though....

I'm not sure about CG (depends where you put the struts) but it would definitely require a new wing, new fuel system, new vertical stabilizer, new flight control software, and new landing gear (much larger fan = more ground clearance required).

Tom.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2829 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
It's probably technically possible to do such a thing, but I'm pretty sure that nobody would want to. The investment would be enormous.

Indeed. Couple that with a very small market and your profit margins are non-existent.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
It's probably technically possible to do such a thing, but I'm pretty sure that nobody would want to. The investment would be enormous.

Indeed. Couple that with a very small market and your profit margins are non-existent.

Couple that with afterburners, however, and the coolness factor would be off the charts.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2781 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4):

Couple that with afterburners, however, and the coolness factor would be off the charts.

That would be fantastic. Put a big red button on the panel for an engine-out condition to kick in the reheat, blow the windows out of the houses around the airfield...sweet.

The fire marshals at Boeing and Airbus are already having heart attacks just thinking about it...

Tom.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21681 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

A twin-engined airplane the size of the 380, yes (though not with today's engine technology), but the 380 is and always will be a quad. Far too much modification to deal with in order to fit two engines, and that's assuming they'd actually fit under the wings.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2218 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

Quoting F.pier (Thread starter):
A380 has 4 engines because at the time it was designed available engines weren't enough powerful to make a twin A380 possible.

It is becoming clear that the A380 was designed with 4 engines not just for the reason you mention, but also to share engines with a smaller twin-engine plane, thus benefiting engine makers (bigger production runs to amortize the development), customers (fleet commonality and interchangeability across twins and quads), and Airbus (commonality as a selling point). At least that's my read of the tea leaves, come 2015 or so  Smile


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2742 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4):
Couple that with afterburners, however, and the coolness factor would be off the charts.

Lol!

BTW is this your new thing now, 2H4? One sentence posts and outta there?  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2739 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
BTW is this your new thing now, 2H4? One sentence posts and outta there?

Well hell, unless I've got a photo of a Tasmanian Aerospace TA-3 Machthrasher 9000 (mk.IV), I'm really not good for much beyond the odd one-liner.  Wink

2H4



P.S. - Yes, I'm aware of the irony of this post being one sentence long...



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 899 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No, not at this time.

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
Total installed thrust on an A380 is about 280,000 lbs. Since it's a quad, that means the airplane actually needs 210,000 lbs of thrust to operate safely

Could you explain the calculation Involved.

Trent 900 or GP-7200 would def be used for other Type Aircraft in the future.This would help in reducing Airline operator stores inventory in the long run.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 11):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
Total installed thrust on an A380 is about 280,000 lbs. Since it's a quad, that means the airplane actually needs 210,000 lbs of thrust to operate safely

Could you explain the calculation Involved.

- A380-800 has 4 engines at 70k lb each = 280k lb total.
- Engine out requirements dictates that the aircraft shall be able to proceed with an engine failure at the worst possible moment (V1). There are other requirements but that's the big one. With one engine out available thrust is 3 x 70k lb = 210 k lb. In other words, the aircraft "needs" 210 k and has 70 k (one engine) as a "reserve".
- An engine failure on a twin leaves you with one engine, so that engine alone needs to propel the aircraft from an engine failure at V1. Since the theoretical aircraft ("twin 380-800) is the same, the thrust required is the same. So that one engine needs to produce 210 k lb. As before, one engine is the "reserve".



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 11):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
Total installed thrust on an A380 is about 280,000 lbs. Since it's a quad, that means the airplane actually needs 210,000 lbs of thrust to operate safely

Could you explain the calculation Involved.

Exactly what Starlionblue said. Only he did it more eloquently, thanks!

Tom.


User currently offlineSpeedbird2263 From Jamaica, joined Jul 2006, 470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2224 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):

So by that calculation if the 77W were to be modified as a quad it would require each engine to have a thrust of 38,333 lbs. Interesting  scratchchin 

I.e 115,000lbs / 3 in an Engine Out assuming a quad design.



Straight'n Up 'N Fly Right Son ;)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting Speedbird2263 (Reply 14):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):

So by that calculation if the 77W were to be modified as a quad it would require each engine to have a thrust of 38,333 lbs. Interesting scratchchin

I.e 115,000lbs / 3 in an Engine Out assuming a quad design.

Indeed. Little hairdryers. This of course explains the 342/343.

Of course, planes are never quite optimized to that theoretical limit. IIRC there are some two engine out requirements for quads as well.

[Edited 2007-11-20 17:38:30]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2167 times:



Quoting Speedbird2263 (Reply 14):

So by that calculation if the 77W were to be modified as a quad it would require each engine to have a thrust of 38,333 lbs. Interesting scratchchin

I.e 115,000lbs / 3 in an Engine Out assuming a quad design.

Correct. Only then it would be an A340-200/300.

Tom.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Is Theorically Possible A Twin Engined A380?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Twin-engined A345 - Possible? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 14:56:22 by CRJ900
How Is This Possible? posted Mon Jul 2 2007 03:27:16 by 777DadandJr
Is It Possible To Develop A Flap... posted Thu Feb 15 2007 20:24:22 by Blackbird
Single Jet Engine GA Plane (Is It Possible?) posted Sat Jan 6 2007 22:19:36 by Blackbird
Is This Possible? posted Sun Dec 18 2005 04:24:13 by Nirmalmakadia
Where Is The Trim Wheel On A380? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 16:02:47 by Keta
Another Step In ILS? Is This Possible? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 14:12:45 by Aerlingus330
Is It Possible To Change Engine Types? posted Mon Oct 25 2004 05:44:08 by EnviroTO
Twin Engined Turboprops Vs Piston Engines posted Wed Oct 6 2004 12:17:52 by Arniepie
Autoland, Is It Possible? posted Sun Sep 28 2003 04:12:55 by Tarzanboy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format