Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-1000 New Wing To Support 4 Engines F0r -1100?  
User currently offlinePanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13629 times:

According to Flight Airbus A350 programme chief Didier Evrard said for the A350-1000 wing that "there will be detail differences, for example to the high-lift system and the pylon".

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...wo-years-to-refine-1000s-wing.html

Is it possible that Airbus might be looking at the possibility of lengthening the A350-1000 to close to 78 - 80m, and then if no engines support the bigger plane by the time they are ready, to go with a 4-engine approach?

An A350-1100 will be a good fit between the A350-1000 and the A380 and will compete with the B-777 replacement.

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2256 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days ago) and read 13596 times:

I proposed something like this several times. I know that the trend towards twins is huge and probably irreversible. But when looking at factors that could reverse the trend I see the possibility that smaller GTF engines could make a quad superior in TSFC. Together with the reduced requirements for total take-off-thrust this could lead to an other-than-VLA-quad that could win the efficiency-crown in the future.

In the end probably just some lazy predictions...


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4043 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13470 times:



Quoting Panais (Thread starter):

Is it possible that Airbus might be looking at the possibility of lengthening the A350-1000 to close to 78 - 80m, and then if no engines support the bigger plane by the time they are ready, to go with a 4-engine approach?

I highly doubt that - the reference to pylon changes is probably due to the fact that the A350-1000 will have a heavier engine than the -800 or -900, combined with the fact that that engine produces more thrust. Theres no point in carrying that extra weight around on the bulk of the family.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13445 times:



Quoting Panais (Thread starter):
An A350-1100 will be a good fit between the A350-1000 and the A380 and will compete with the B-777 replacement.

How would a new quad compete with the 777 replacement? I would venture to say it would be the same as the current A340 vs 777 situation.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13359 times:

I don't think there is any need, I'm guessing that would turn into airbus' version of the 748 which so far isn't a hot seller on the passenger side. It seems like they would have another 777 vs A340 situation but this time they would be developing both planes. If there was no A380 them I think it would be a possibility but the 748 pretty much has this market taken care of I think

User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 13297 times:



Quoting Panais (Thread starter):
and then if no engines support the bigger plane

But such engines already exist! Ever heard of the GE90-115B? If GE can do it, why couldn't RR?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13210 times:

I would not be surprized if Airbus is considering a A350-1100 & 1200 or A370-200 and -300 using the CRFP fuselage, wing, cockpit and landing gear. It would incorporate a tail section as patented recently by Airbus:



A third 70-80.000lbs Trent / GENX class would not increase weight over e.g. two GE90's and provide sufficient power in case of an engine failure after V1. Important to carry serious cargo long haul (=Asia). A A340-600 style center gear would take care of additional MTOW / wheel pressure issues.



An additional 5-7 rows could lift capasity about 400 seats.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13093 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
I would not be surprized if Airbus is considering a A350-1100 & 1200 or A370-200 and -300 using the CRFP fuselage, wing, cockpit and landing gear. It would incorporate a tail section as patented recently by Airbus:

I'd be surprised if anyone launched a new trijet. Wouldn't you?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13076 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 7):
I'd be surprised if anyone launched a new trijet. Wouldn't you?

Its seems a good compromise to me.

2 x 150 lbs would become very big & heavy, making it unpracticlle under the wing.

I'm not sure if any OEM even wants to build it.

500 passengers on a single engine far above an ocean doesn't attract me neither.

Statictics on this show no reliability magic.

A&B both launched 4 haulers recently, trijets don't carry an emotional barrier I guess.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13069 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
A&B both launched 4 haulers recently, trijets don't carry an emotional barrier I guess.

You can't count the 748 - it's an modification of an old design. But all those reasons would have applied to the A380, and Airbus obviously decided that the centre engine maintenance penalty was more than the fourth engine maintenance penalty. I presume that they did do this calculation.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5757 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13069 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Its seems a good compromise to me.

I see two problems:

1) the extra weight necessitated by both the twin vertical stabilizers and the extra structure that would be necessary in the horizontal stabilizers to support the vertical stabilizers, and

2) the usual problem, common to every trijet ever made, of time-consuming, expensive, and potentially dangerous mx procedures required for the No. 2 engine.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
2 x 150 lbs would become very big & heavy, making it unpracticlle under the wing.

Remember that everyone said this about 80klb engines before the 777 was built. It went on to completely kill off its 3-engine competiton (MD-11) and nearly kill off the 4-engine competition (A340 and eventually 744 pax).


User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12977 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
It would incorporate a tail section as patented recently by Airbus:

If its the one in the diagram shown, it looks exactly like the tail section used on the An-225. What are the advantages of such a tail section?



Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5757 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12952 times:



Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 11):
What are the advantages of such a tail section?

It was used on the An-225 because the An-225 was originally designed to carry the Buran orbiter on its back. Oversize cargo on top of the fuselage would prevent a conventional tail from being effective by interfering with the airflow.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12924 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 12):
Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 11):
What are the advantages of such a tail section?

It was used on the An-225 because the An-225 was originally designed to carry the Buran orbiter on its back. Oversize cargo on top of the fuselage would prevent a conventional tail from being effective by interfering with the airflow.

Many aircraft used this for various reasons. The A10 also for propulsion reasons. Studies into new NB design by both A & B have it. The tail shields of noise produced by engines.

Airbus foresees a segment for twin aisles larger the n A350XWB and B777-300ER in their latest market forecast. http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/g...for-passenger-aircraft/twin-aisle/

Putting a bigger engine and the XWB would IMO require a redesign of wings, landing gears etc.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 10):
1) the extra weight necessitated by both the twin vertical stabilizers and the extra structure that would be necessary in the horizontal stabilizers to support the vertical stabilizers

A 3 x 80lbs aircrafty would have 160.000 lbs (less asymetrical) thrust left if one engine fails during a critical flight phase. Hard to realize that with a twin. 3 GENX engines (240 lbs) weigh about the same as two GE90-115s (230k lbs)..

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 11):
If its the one in the diagram shown, it looks exactly like the tail section used on the An-225. What are the advantages of such a tail section?



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 10):
2) the usual problem, common to every trijet ever made, of time-consuming, expensive, and potentially dangerous mx procedures required for the No. 2 engine.

The patent Airbus got is about easy accessibility & replacement of the tail engine.
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7240877


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12914 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 10):
I see two problems:

A third: airflow into the middle engine during certain manouvers.
A fourth: CG issues with the long forward cargo hold this design has...

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
A 3 x 80lbs aircrafty would have 160.000 lbs (less asymetrical) thrust left if one engine fails during a critical flight phase. Hard to realize that with a twin.

That is a case, yes. A longer fuselage and larger vertical stabilizer/rudder can help here.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
3 GENX engines (240 lbs) weigh about the same as two GE90-115s (230k lbs)..

As I've shown you on another forum - the dry weight of three GEnx engines is a minimum of ~3klbs MORE than the dry weight of two GE90-115Bs. In addition, you'd get the additional strengthening and structural changes a tail engine would bring with it. It would end up weighing much more.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
The patent Airbus got is about easy accessibility & replacement of the tail engine.
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=US...40877

Both Airbus and Boeing file several patents each year, it doesn't mean that they're going to build what they patent.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 12805 times:



Quoting Brendows (Reply 14):
As I've shown you on another forum - the dry weight of three GEnx engines is a minimum of ~3klbs MORE than the dry weight of two GE90-115Bs. In addition, you'd get the additional strengthening and structural changes a tail engine would bring with it. It would end up weighing much more.

~3klbs is more then enough for the additional thrust / MTOW performance.

- putting 160 klbs thrust engines under the wing of an A350 aint for free either to say it mildly. On top of that a 400+ seat big twin would need an enormous vertical tail.

I think we have to take the A350 XWB fuselage & wing as a starting point and then look for a 420 seat requirement.

GE says it has problem to break even on the GE90. A completely new even bigger engine is probably not on its wish list.. State of the art 80.000klbs engines are "off the shelf". The amount of engine per passenger wouldn't be more the e.g 787, 748i & A380..

Twin-engined aircraft are burdened by turbofans with "ever-increasing mass and size, thereby making it necessary for the aircraft structure [fuselage, wings and landing gear, in particular] to be designed accordingly," says the patent application.

This design "makes it possible to considerably reduce the previous acoustic problems, since the noise generated by the third engine of the fuselage is sucked up by the channel", the patent document says.

The tail structure and the third engine add weight and new structural complexity, but the Airbus inventors counter that the trijet can still beat a twin-engined type on fuel efficiency through offsetting improvements.

The added weight of the tail "is largely compensated for the by the drop in the mass of the landing gear, the reason being that the landing gear is dimensionally smaller and less voluminous given the smaller engines".




http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-patent-for-new-trijet-design.html

I think people who have written any trijet because the 777 was a succes should wait a little longer..


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 12754 times:

Quoting Panais (Thread starter):
Is it possible that Airbus might be looking at the possibility of lengthening the A350-1000 to close to 78 - 80m, and then if no engines support the bigger plane by the time they are ready, to go with a 4-engine approach?


There's a very low chance... I don't think that plane would need anything bigger than a 115,000 lb engine, and we know that Rolls Royce knows how to make one.

That being said, its 100% more feasible than a trijet config.

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 7):
I'd be surprised if anyone launched a new trijet. Wouldn't you?

Absolutely shocked. A 4 holer would come first.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Its seems a good compromise to me.

Its the worst idea anyone has ever suggested. There is absolutely zero chance of it whatsoever in an A350 size airframe.

NS

[Edited 2008-05-26 11:04:33]

User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 12732 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
GE says it has problem to break even on the GE90.

When did they say this? With all the recent sales of 77W's I'd think they must have done something really wrong to have lost money on the GE90-115B. And couldn't it have something to do with the cash they injected into Boeing for the 77L/77W.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 12714 times:



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
Its the worst idea anyone has ever suggested. There is absolutely zero chance of it whatsoever in an A350 size airframe.

I've been in airline / aerospace business for some time and tend to be less absolutely sure about future developments, just like the engineers that filled the patent. Others have suggested not so very good ideas in the past. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/1010739  Wink


User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 12691 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 14):
Both Airbus and Boeing file several patents each year, it doesn't mean that they're going to build what they patent.

Seems very much like a game of chess, blocking and threatening each others paths, and having to think hard and carefully about future designs.


Quoting Gigneil
"Its the worst idea anyone has ever suggested. There is absolutely zero chance of it whatsoever in an A350 size airframe."

Is this due to the increased requirement for thrust of each engine as opposed to four smaller engines? Maintenance?

[Edited 2008-05-26 15:27:42]


Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 12671 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):

I've been in airline / aerospace business for some time

I somewhat seriously doubt that.

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 19):
Is this due to the increased requirement for thrust of each engine as opposed to four smaller engines? Maintenance?

Just the strengthening of the airframe alone and the requisite complexity therein is enough reason. That double tailplane? The weight necessary to build it all? None of it makes any sense.

Neither the A380, A340, nor 747 are trijets despite all being EASILY doable with three engines. They're just poor ideas, relative to twins and quads, but we didn't know that when building the first set and nobody could argue the MD-11 as a good idea.

Back to the topic, the A350-1100 would be NO trouble for a twin. A larger aircraft still shouldn't be a problem with twin engine technology today. A GE90 could be built tomorrow to do it.

NS


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17108 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 12651 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 17):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
GE says it has problem to break even on the GE90.

When did they say this? With all the recent sales of 77W's I'd think they must have done something really wrong to have lost money on the GE90-115B. And couldn't it have something to do with the cash they injected into Boeing for the 77L/77W.

Sales alone do not make profit. Those engines are viciously expensive to develop and manufacture. I think GE is investing in a long future of engines in the 100k+ class. Current low profits are the price they are paying.

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 19):
Is this due to the increased requirement for thrust of each engine as opposed to four smaller engines? Maintenance?

Maintenance and increased weight. Also issues with an engine close to many critical control surfaces.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 20):

Neither the A380, A340, nor 747 are trijets despite all being EASILY doable with three engines.

Indeed.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 12613 times:

I believe that the following should hold true.

1. It is getting prohibitively expensive to experiment with aircraft design anymore. (B787, A340, A380)
2. Airbus and Boeing can only afford up to 3 aircraft families (A320, A350, A380) (B737, B787, Y3) with some aircraft competing for as much as they can, because the other maker cannot deliver (A330 and B777)
3. Engine manufacturers are also feeling the pain of going along with aircraft makers for every design they have.
4. Airplanes with 4 engines can be successful and efficient as a 2 engine. (Just ask Boeing on how it feels about its A340-300s (yes, they have them) and look at the aircraft's fuel consumption at Lufthansa, which is the same as a A330-300)

Therefore, the need to extend families, such as the A350 to handle up to 420 seats, or the 787-10, will be done by making small to medium size changes focusing on reusing developed and paid for components such as engines, wings, etc.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10167 posts, RR: 97
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 12599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Panais (Thread starter):
Is it possible that Airbus might be looking at the possibility of lengthening the A350-1000 to close to 78 - 80m, and then if no engines support the bigger plane by the time they are ready, to go with a 4-engine approach?

It's been speculated that the size of the A350's wing allows this stretch. It's wing is the same size as the 773ER's.
I don't see a need for this stretch to weigh any more than around 325 tonnes, though (assuming the others hit their weight targets), which would mean that around 105k lb would be plenty.

No. I think the changes are pretty much what they say they are:-
A more capable high-lift system to accommodate the weight of the A350-1000, and stronger pylons for the thrust.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
I don't think that plane would need anything bigger than a 115,000 lb engine, and we know that Rolls Royce knows how to make one.

 checkmark  If that big  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12469 times:



Quoting Panais (Reply 22):
4. Airplanes with 4 engines can be successful and efficient as a 2 engine. (Just ask Boeing on how it feels about its A340-300s (yes, they have them)

I'm pretty sure they don't have them anymore. Regardless, it was Boeing Capital Corporation that had them, not Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It was some part of the deal to get Boeing airplanes to a customer...I'm pretty sure that Boeing didn't actually want to have them as assets.

Tom.


25 Hypersonic : Hi Thegeek, Actually RR DID do it, or rather did have a GE90-115B equiv ready to produce. However Boeing wanted the Engine manufacturer to share in t
26 OldAeroGuy : No part of Boeing has any A340's, they were sold long ago. I think Lufthansa would be shocked with this bit of news.
27 Post contains links Panais : Thanks for confirming that Boeing had the A340-300. I am sure that they are also aware of their performance as well. Suggest that you read page 95 of
28 Starlionblue : Half a percent. I would say that qualifies as pretty close to the same. However maintenance costs on the 343 are probably higher.
29 LAXDESI : I think these fuel burn numbers reflect the different mission lengths(A343 longer, A333 shorter) both aircrafts are used for. For similar mission len
30 OldAeroGuy : I agree with LAXDESI, you need to compare the airplanes on the same mission length to understand what the differences in fuel burn are. Even more imp
31 Keesje : Well it aint the first time you missed things I'm not sure for this particular case. The CFM56s proved incredible reliable on 737 and A320. The A340'
32 SeaBosDca : Dramatic example of how these numbers tend to be misleading. Thank you, sir.
33 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Relative to this comparison: Please see these data in this thread: 333-6,000 kg/hr 772/343-6900 kg/hr http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_op
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A350-1000 New Wing To Support 4 Engines F0r -1100?
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...
Wing-to-Fuselage Fairings: Why No Fuel Tanks? posted Tue Nov 13 2007 04:22:40 by Faro
Boeing May Not Test 787 Wing To Destruction posted Tue May 29 2007 19:22:40 by Stitch
CPL-Fixed Wing To CPL-Rotor posted Sat Apr 7 2007 03:10:39 by Corey07850
New Airline To Avoid Major Airports! posted Sun May 28 2000 18:36:31 by Erau
Engines On Wing Question posted Mon Mar 24 2008 23:42:00 by AR385
Speculation: New Engines For MD-80s? posted Sat Mar 15 2008 20:22:35 by TSS
Delivery Of New Engines posted Sat Feb 9 2008 14:32:42 by XXXX10
New Breed Of Engines Needed? posted Wed Nov 7 2007 15:17:14 by Flipdewaf
What Is Done To Flight Test A New ILS Or Loc posted Sat Oct 6 2007 17:49:42 by FlightPlan06
Being Towed With Engines Off To Gate? posted Sun Sep 2 2007 04:45:38 by Wardialer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format