Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus A320 Enhanced Series, Boeing Reaction?  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 26701 times:

.
While not promoting the A320 Enhanced for the 2010-2020 period, Airbus are obviously not sitting on their hands. Various parties are contracted and enhancements are being tested.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA320possibleenhancements.jpg?t=1230036848

Some enhancements are already offfered as options, others are still under development or might prove just fantasy  Wink. If the GTF works, PW indicated it would take 2.5 yrs to get it ready for EIS. No doubt market leader CFM (Safran/GE) isn't watching from the side line, and RR are probably not keen on IAE fading away.

Airbus and its supply chain seem carefull not to hurt current sales. As soon as enhancements look good, airlines might postpone deliveries, waiting for the Enhanced slots. Specially during the current credit crises / economic downturn.

Two yrs ago everything was still up in the air, http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...neral_aviation/read.main/2724857/, now bits and pieces seem to come together.

No doubt Boeing is working on strategies to counter the emerging performance gab. I myself expect Boeing to go for an all new design before Airbus, when the 787 workload peak / economic crisis is behind us.

Flightglobal provides more details on possible A320 Enhanced improvements:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...wbody-development-on-the-back.html
.

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3393 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 26572 times:

I guess that Airbus will look at drip-feeding in the improvements almost as soon as they're ready so that airlines can add them to their orders at relatively short notice (eg 9 months) so they don't have the excuse to cancel or defer.

User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5518 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 26506 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I myself expect Boeing to go for an all new design before Airbus, when the 787 workload peak / economic crisis is behind us.

So then you might just as easily ask how Airbus will react to Boeing's likely, and sensible, decision to engineer an all-new narrowbody for EIS in the late 2010s.

Will the A320 Enhanced be good enough, or will Airbus end up investing tens of millions on the enhancements only to have to turn around soon afterward and create its own new airplane?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 26234 times:

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 2):
So then you might just as easily ask how Airbus will react to Boeing's likely, and sensible, decision to engineer an all-new narrowbody for EIS in the late 2010s.

Will the A320 Enhanced be good enough, or will Airbus end up investing tens of millions on the enhancements only to have to turn around soon afterward and create its own new airplane?

That might be a good question. However thinking about a possible answer of A to an answer B might have in 10 yrs is a bit shaky these days, even for me  

Onlt think I've seen is Boeing saying they might consider putting a GTF under the 737,

But only a short article and sketch by flightglobal can be found so far..

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-at-gtf-737-re-engining-study.html

It could very well be lighter aircraft like the CSeries, MRJ and Superjet in their (little doubt under consideration) stretched variants threatening to push Airbus out of the crusial 130-150 seat market that trigger it to invest..

The flightglobal article above states :
Airbus executives said at Farnborough that a GTF-powered A320 could be developed within 24-30 months of deciding on the move. However they warned that "a lot depends on how that engine programme looks" and that they would "wait and see what the data tells us" from the A340 tests.

Test flying started nearly 3 months ago, so they should have a pretty good impression by now..

[Edited 2008-12-23 06:56:10]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 25650 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing has been consistently improving the 737 Next Generation family over the years:

  • They added winglets to improve range and reduce fuel consumption.
  • They added carbon brakes to reduce weight and improve braking performance.
  • They've created longer-ranged models of the 737-700 and 737-900.
  • They worked with Panasonic and Thales to develop an in-seat IFE option.
  • They developed a "short-field" kit that improves the amount of payload that can be lifted off and landed on runways of 5000ft or less length.
  • They developed a Class 3 Electronic Flight Bag.
  • They developed a system to allow operations from airports at altitudes up to 14,500ft.
  • They developed a Global-Positioning Based Landing System.

And that's just in the past four years alone...

As for engines, the CFM LEAP56 will fit under the 737NG and even Pratt is implying they can shoe-horn a GTF under there, as well, which makes sense as I doubt they'd want to abandon half the market...

[Edited 2008-12-23 08:28:39]

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 25493 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
As for engines, the CFM LEAP56 will fit under the 737NG and even Pratt is implying they can shoe-horn a GTF under there, as well, which makes sense as I doubt they'd want to abandon half the market...

I think both the 737 and A320 have relatively limitted by-pass ration of 1 to 4.x. e.g the Trent 900 and GENX have close to 1 : 9 making them inherent more energy efficient

A GTF on the A320 could have a bigger BPR of say 1:7.5 combined with more optimal turbine / fan rpm, counter rotation, higher pressure ratio's, better combution chambers, higher temperartures etc leading to significant better sfc.

Of course Boeing can shoe in a low BPR GTF under the 737, and it will have better SFC, but how much better remains a question. Combined with the spacier A320 cabin and cargo container capability I doubt it would be enough to prevent some Boeing 737 operators from switching, let alone be competative for new operators.

Of course Boeing Commercial Aircraft knows & will have a plan B in the drawer ( if plan A is wait & see ) ..


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12587 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25158 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Boeing has been consistently improving the 737 Next Generation family over the years:


* They added winglets to improve range and reduce fuel consumption.
* They added carbon brakes to reduce weight and improve braking performance.
* They've created longer-ranged models of the 737-700 and 737-900.
* They worked with Panasonic and Thales to develop an in-seat IFE option.
* They developed a "short-field" kit that improves the amount of payload that can be lifted off and landed on runways of 5000ft or less length.
* They developed a Class 3 Electronic Flight Bag.
* They developed a system to allow operations from airports at altitudes up to 14,500ft.
* They developed a Global-Positioning Based Landing System.

This article referenced in the thread starter says the following about the 737:

Quote:
Its in-service enhancement programme has been so prolific that many items that Airbus has just introduced or is planning for the A320 are already offered on its rival. These include winglets (introduced in 2001) and cockpit upgrades - head-up display (2001), vertical situation display (2003), GPS landing system (2005) and Class 3 electronic flight bag (2006).

Unlike the A320, the 737NG already complies with the 16g head-impact seat requirement, as it was a US Federal Aviation Administration certification requirement. Boeing phased in fuel inerting (a nitrogen generating system for the centre tank) this year on new-build 737s, which adds less than 23kg (50lb). The inerting system is being retrofitted to the in-service fleet as well.

Around 90% of 737s being delivered now have winglets developed by Aviation Partners Boeing. These provide fuel burn savings of "up to 4% depending on the route", says Polt.

I have a hard time seeing any major 737 operator jumping ship to an enhanced A320. The cost of the transition would be huge, and there's no need for Airbus to make concessions to make it happen, given the large A320 backlog.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWN700Driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25127 times:



Quote:
I think both the 737 and A320 have relatively limitted by-pass ration of 1 to 4.x. e.g the Trent 900 and GENX have close to 1 : 9 making them inherent more energy efficient

Couldn't they just shrink the diameter of the core to achieve a higher BPR? How big were the engine cores used on the Avro RJs or CR2? Not sure what that would do for effieciency, but I'm sure you could get 7.5 BPR on a 73G if you really wanted to.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12587 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25071 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
The flightglobal article above states :
Airbus executives said at Farnborough that a GTF-powered A320 could be developed within 24-30 months of deciding on the move.

Yes, but that's just the Airbus side. It's not clear exactly when Pratt could get around to a GTF optimized for the A320.

It make for an impressive picture, but keep in mind the GTF hanging off the A340 is a demonstrator (PW6000 core with GTF front end and LPT) and Pratt has to commitments to build, test and certify the GTF for the CSeries and MRJ and their engines are somewhat smaller than what one would want for an A320.

These issues are the ones that drive things out till 2012 or 2014.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25070 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Shrinking down the core raises temperatures and pressures, I expect, which brings their own set of issues that need to be addressed.

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 24962 times:

From the article:

"However they warned that "a lot depends on how that engine programme looks" and that they would "wait and see what the data tells us" from the A340 tests."

I wonder at what % improvement would Airbus decide that its worth putting a new GTF under the A32X's.

I'm going to say >3% SFC improvement (wild guess).



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 24901 times:

Im more curious if Airbus will invest more in the A318 and offer the GTF engine and compete head on with MRJ and Bombardier?

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 24819 times:



Quoting WN700Driver (Reply 7):
Couldn't they just shrink the diameter of the core to achieve a higher BPR?

Yes...this is one of the more pervasive incorrect assumptions about the GTF. You don't have to jack up the fan size, you can just shrink the core and hold the fan size, which ups bypass ratio.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Shrinking down the core raises temperatures and pressures, I expect, which brings their own set of issues that need to be addressed.

I'm not sure that this is true. The limiter on N1 speed is the fan tip speed. The GTF frees the LP turbine from that restriction, so the LP turbine can go faster and closer to its optimal speed. As a result, the LP turbine can extract more power from the same flow (same pressure and temperature). You can use that extra power to drive a bigger fan, or keep the same fan and make the core smaller. I suspect that solutions for the A320 and 737 will lean towards the latter side of the design trade.

Tom.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 24746 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 2):
So then you might just as easily ask how Airbus will react to Boeing's likely, and sensible, decision to engineer an all-new narrowbody for EIS in the late 2010s.

I don't think that it will matter... both airframer's next narrowbody will most likely be their last "conventional" airliner and a few year's differrence in EIS will not be nearly as important as getting it right for the VERY long haul (pun intended).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
It could very well be lighter aircraft like the CSeries, MRJ and Superjet in their (little doubt under consideration) stretched variants threatening to push Airbus out of the crusial 130-150 seat market that trigger it to invest..

The Superjet will not breakout of the traditional "USSR" markets. MRJ has a good chance of breaking out of Japan. The CSeries will never be produced.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Boeing has been consistently improving the 737 Next Generation family over the years:

....

And that's just in the past four years alone...

I agree, the 737 will continue to improve, as it always has.

Now that the oil bubble has burst, all the rationale for a new narrowbody... "NOW"... has been swept off the table. There won't be an all new NB until 2020... at the earliest.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 23917 times:



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
guess that Airbus will look at drip-feeding in the improvements almost as soon as they're ready

I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it. If I were Airbus and wanted to grab a customer like say, Southwest, I would be doing everything in my power to have a brand new 737/320 competitor on the drawing board ASAP.



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I myself expect Boeing to go for an all new design before Airbus, when the 787 workload peak / economic crisis is behind us.

We've talked about his before, and I got hammered for my opinions, but I'm still under the belief that at this given point, Boeing has the money and resources to get the design out first.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineRailker From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 23796 times:

Man, now we can't use the winglets to ID the aircraft in wing shots ...

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 23162 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
The Superjet will not breakout of the traditional "USSR" markets.

Half the world flies with Russian made aircraft, this one seems has more western technology then any before (Safran, Goodrich, Honeywell, Thales all are in).

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
MRJ has a good chance of breaking out of Japan.

The Japanese have not exported any aircraft so far, I think they need a marketing / sales partner..

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
The CSeries will never be produced.

The CSeries looks very good, I think they need a big western partner too to make this promising aircraft a success.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
I agree, the 737 will continue to improve, as it always has.

Lets assume the CFM56-5 (A320) and CFM-56-7 (737NG) performance is similar.

Pratt claimed in August after flight tests the GTF "achieved "near double-digit" improvements in fuel burn on the demonstrator and validates the 12-15% improvement the manufacturer hopes to deliver in service.

Say the winglets give a 3% gain, aerodynamics twists another 2%.

That could mean a A320 Enhanced being 15% more fuel efficient, much more silent (late slots), more comfortable and pallet / container capable.



I think Boeing could be not in the driver seat here. They could be forced to react before they wanted too.

[Edited 2008-12-23 13:30:06]

User currently offlineObserver From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 23030 times:

Aviation and the Environment Magazine just published a 5 page piece about the A320E and what they are calling a 737 Re-Generation (not a new airplane, but a major redesign of the 737).

There's no direct link, just to the magazine website--they article starts on Pg 18

http://edition.pagesuite-professiona...-45da-42c2-844a-f9e7da4a0bc5&skip=


User currently offlineIAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 502 posts, RR: 44
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 22828 times:

I just did a write up on Scott's article. Biggest revelation in there is the new 787 style cabin being designed for FlyDubai's 737-800s.

"In the near term, Hamilton states that FlyDubai, which ordered 50 new 737-800 aircraft at the Farnborough Air Show in July, will be the launch customer for a new interior for the narrowbody, drawing on 787 features to remake the 737 cabin. Delivery was originally planned for September 2009, but Hamilton adds that it could be delayed by the Fall's two-month IAM strike. "

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ntroducing-the-boeing-737-re-.html

IAD787



Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 22648 times:

Quoting Observer (Reply 17):

Aviation and the Environment Magazine

Thnx, interresting stuff. Mostly overlapping with this post but also good new info. Remarkably Pratt, Boeing, Airbus and the magazine citing sources are all sketching different priorities, timetables and scenarios. Stakes are high, likely everyone has a double agenda !

[Edited 2008-12-23 14:14:01]

User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 21053 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Yes...this is one of the more pervasive incorrect assumptions about the GTF. You don't have to jack up the fan size, you can just shrink the core and hold the fan size, which ups bypass ratio.

If you shrink the core then the thrust will shrink for example
Trent 884 84000 lb trust 110" fan byepass ratio around 6
Trent 1000 69800 lb trust 112" fan byepass ratio around 11

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
the LP turbine can extract more power from the same flow

Modern LP turbines are up towards 90% efficient already, what a GTF can do it achieve the same objective with fewer stages and less weight, it can't get much more power. (and the gears will have a compensating weight penalty) GTF is not a game changing technology, just another way to achieve high byepass (IMHO)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y...+%25&lr=&ei=Rn5RSbrtBKDkzQSyr5DuAQ



Jambrain
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 20536 times:



Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Yes...this is one of the more pervasive incorrect assumptions about the GTF. You don't have to jack up the fan size, you can just shrink the core and hold the fan size, which ups bypass ratio.

If you shrink the core then the thrust will shrink for example

But those examples are the same generation cores (same efficiency). If you increase the core efficiency at the same size it produces more shaft HP for the fan (more thrust) or, alternatively, you can shrink the core and get the same power.

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
the LP turbine can extract more power from the same flow

Modern LP turbines are up towards 90% efficient already, what a GTF can do it achieve the same objective with fewer stages and less weight, it can't get much more power.

All modern LP turbines (at least in commercial airliners) are slinging large fans, which means they're running slower than they could if they weren't RPM locked to the fan. Increasing the LP speed means more power extraction without any weight increase, or the same power extraction with a smaller (lighter & smaller core diameter) turbine.

Tom.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 20478 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
Half the world flies with Russian made aircraft, this one seems has more western technology then any before (Safran, Goodrich, Honeywell, Thales all are in).

Yes, that is why I said the "USSR" market area. That the Superjet has more western tech is a non-issue... they needed that just for their own domestic market acceptance. Even at that Aeroflot was reluctant to order it.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The Japanese have not exported any aircraft so far, I think they need a marketing / sales partner..

No, but they do have a deal with Boeing and I can see them flogging some frames off to some non-North American or European carriers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The CSeries looks very good, I think they need a big western partner too to make this promising aircraft a success.

Too complex a project for BBD (and the fuel efficiency argument has virtually vanished).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
I think Boeing could be not in the driver seat here. They could be forced to react before they wanted too.

No, they are not going to "rush" an all-new airframe response to an A320E when this airframe will be the last conventional NB that they will build.

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):
what a GTF can do it achieve the same objective with fewer stages and less weight

A GTF actually weighs more than a non-GTF enigne of the same thrust.

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):
GTF is not a game changing technology, just another way to achieve high byepass

It isn't game changing when conventional turbofan development continue to claw away at the efficiency advantage that GTF's have... while the price of fuel remains low in real terms.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 20324 times:

But you will agree that to have a higher bye-pass ratio with same power you need a bigger fan, core improvements (of which GTF is one, 3 shaft is another, high pressure ratio another) will reduce the scaling but they won't eliminate it, modern gas turbines are so close to 100% that you are not able to make step changes.

It's simple physics higher bye-pass = lower jet velocity, lower jet velocity = larger area to achieve same thrust

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 21):
more shaft HP for the fan

The only reason high bye-pass gives an improvement in propulsive efficiency is the lower jet velocity, having more shaft horsepower will increase jet velocity unless you put a bigger fan on.

Jam



Jambrain
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19794 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
Now that the oil bubble has burst, all the rationale for a new narrowbody... "NOW"... has been swept off the table. There won't be an all new NB until 2020... at the earliest.

Yet we don't "know" what oil is going to do moving forward. I understand that the dynamics behind the higher prices have changed, but we never know what is just around the corner. Israel attack on Iran, OPEC, etc.

I guess I wonder if whether in a few years time we'll be wondering why the manufacturers sat on their hands in regards to an all-new NB when we had just gone through a ravaging experience with expensive oil.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
25 Post contains links and images SpruceMoose : How about the NAMC YS-11? View Large View MediumPhoto © Richard Vandervord -SpruceMoose
26 Tdscanuck : No. A smaller core causes bypass ratio to go up without changing fan size. If the core is more efficient and can provide the same amount of power as
27 UA772IAD : Doesn't matter. Mitsubishi is a well known name across the globe that can carry itself... though a marketing partner would certainly help. The compan
28 Parapente : I do believe that Airbus is thinking hard about the next steps.Thet like Boeing are strapped for cash -of which alot would be required for a narrow bo
29 Post contains links Jambrain : You are right of course, however I would still suggest that to a first order approximation higher bpr engines will have less power for a given fan si
30 Planemaker : We do know a few things... 30-to-1 and, in some funds, even 60-to-1 leveraging has gone away for a long time! We also know that the world is taking C
31 Jambrain : So peak oil is just a myth, the Chinese are not going to move their car ownership from 6 per 1000, all is rosy????? I am one that thinks this credit
32 Post contains images Keesje : I guess the high oil prices won't go away like a bad dream. Things will probably go back to normal in time, including the oil prices. Maybe without t
33 Starlionblue : And the Mitsubishi Mu-2.
34 Alessandro : So can we expect longer service periods with a GTF with fewer parts, less complicated to maintain or any other advantages than fuelconsumption?
35 Planemaker : All will be rosy... we don't have a choice. FYI, the Chinese have higher fuel efficiency standards than we do. We are moving to an electric tranport
36 Baroque : Absent the recession/depression (delete to personal taste), you would suppose a quick return to Keesje's trend line would be the go, but staring into
37 MD-90 : Which was a successful design and Mitsubishi has an incredible reputation for supporting the MU-2 even though it's been out of production for a very
38 Rheinbote : 'Half of the world'? What do you have in mind? While I don't like the term 'game changing', at this time neither LEAP-X nor Rolls' RB.something turbo
39 Planemaker : The trend line was built on shaky foundations and was not sustainable. The "bubble" ride was great for those that got out before the collapse but the
40 Rheinbote : To be followed by what? I doubt that. To get anywhere near GTF efficiency, the non-geared engines would have to make use of more airfoils and more ad
41 Planemaker : What comes next is too far out to state with certainty because the pace of technology innovation, particularily in nano tech, is accelerating. An aut
42 Flighty : Things won't be back to normal unless the forests regrow, humans retreat from the ecosystem and the biosphere recovers... IMO. The Brazilian rainfore
43 Starlionblue : The difficulty here is defining "normal". For example, Sweden has never had more forest than it does today. With or without humans, there probably is
44 Parapente : I think its correct to state that most people on this forum look forward to new aircraft and new designs. However the depth,length and severity of thi
45 Baroque : Although part of it could be a version of per encourager les autres to RR and GE with more conventional layouts - "OK, this is what you need to beat"
46 Planemaker : The graph is based on the "old" oil paradigm that is losing its grip on global energy markets with gathering pace. Unless there is a geopolitical cri
47 Keesje : I think oil & gas are in the hands of folks that don't hestitate making money from the West. Its sparse & we have no alternatives.. I think Airbus and
48 Alessandro : ' Well, on a A318 it´ll increase the range, which definitly be a selling point.
49 Planemaker : Well, they obviously can't... otherwise March 09 oil wouldn't be at $37/bbl... even though OPEC announced the largest production cut in history. It i
50 MarkC : Its not the size of the core and fan that determines bypass ratio. Its the massflow through them. A GTF is also going to have a smaller diameter LPC w
51 Post contains links Jambrain : You are missing the whole point of why modern jet engines have a high byepass ratio. To increase propulsive efficiency modern jet engines want to hav
52 Post contains links Keesje : "Hey wait, we're also considering something!" http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...u-boeing-737-jan01,0,2660536.story
53 Baroque : It must be quite a bridge to get 10% from a bridge model???
54 PW100 : Pratt´s 15% is over current generation cores. The 10% that GE and RR are mentioning [and they still have to demonstrate that they can achieve that i
55 Areopagus : ISTR that during development of the 737NG, Boeing floated the idea of putting the less-draggy 757 nose onto it, but customers nixed it in favor of com
56 Alessandro : You seem to follow the GTF project closely, how many hours do they have now on the A340 testbed aircraft on the GTF?
57 Alessandro : A318 is common as VIP transport and better range is definitly a selling point for this.
58 Parapente : I think that the subject of 320/737 improvements will be a "hot" one for 2009. The "heavy" market is "complete" with the 748 and 388.Yes there will be
59 Alessandro : The B757 replacement is called Tu-204/214. I think the up-sizing of the current GTF will be a pain so the A318 is still the logical option.
60 Tdscanuck : I really really want to start the A vs. B flamewar here, but keep in mind that the 737 underwent a massive redesign (the largest in the model's histo
61 Post contains links Keesje : New FlightGlobal article on the subject. Nothing new though. Airbus/Boeing single-aisle refresh plans edge closer http://www.flightglobal.com/articles
62 Parapente : As you say Keesje - nothing really new - but interesting none the less. The 340 trials are finished (did not know this) and Boeings new 787 interior f
63 PW100 : Well, I'm not following it particularly closely, although I very much do like the fundamentals of this technology. " target=_blank>http://www.flightg
64 Post contains links and images Keesje : Some first comments on the Airbus GTF tests. Obviously PW signed a non disclosure agreement with Airbus on GTF results. PW says they are focussing on
65 DocLightning : That's hardly a "drip" change. New engines can mean a lot of new systems. Also, the 737 airframe is now very old. About 20 years older than the A320'
66 Gigneil : That is just not the case. The heavier, colder bypass air produces much more thrust. Now, how you GET to that BPR may require other tradeoffs which r
67 Tdscanuck : The 737NG airframe was totally redesigned with the 737NG. The outer mold lines of the nose and tail are very similar, but the wing is all new and the
68 Parapente : Well its one thing or the other isn't it really. Boeing have clearly stated that 1.They have a package of small improvements ready.This matches the pa
69 Starlionblue : I can't remember if this has been mentioned yet but the market for a 737/320 type airliner is big. Very big. Even if A and B start production on the s
70 Post contains images Keesje : I think Airbus will make a move reengining the A320 and add some improvements we have not seen yet. Longer term the trend probably will be flying slow
71 DocLightning : The 737 is on its last legs. The frame first flew in 1967. 42 years and counting. The replacement will be a replacement, not an upgrade. The A320 is
72 Tdscanuck : The 737NG was designed in the mid 90's. The A320 was designed in the early 80's. How is the A320 a newer design? That's because it *is* a widebody co
73 Sirtoby : No true! The GTF gets a complete new core and that's part of the 15%.
74 Post contains images KEESJE : I think the 757 is unique. It has Commonality with the 767 but that has more to do with instrumentation. The 767 nose section is identical to the one
75 Post contains images Rheinbote : Maybe, but certainly nothing like that. Whoever 'designed' it doesn't know squat about CG, loadability, and positioning of landing gears.
76 JoeCanuck : I suspect that open rotors will be limited, (by noise as much as anything else), to smaller diameters. I reckon the GTF has more room to grow. Maybe I
77 PGNCS : I certainly hope that a clean-sheet design from Boeing won't drag systems architecture from the 737. That is certainly true. The worst cockpit I have
78 Post contains links Keesje : The combined european aerospace industry & research institutes http://www.cleansky.eu/index.php?arbo_id=65&set_language=en
79 Rheinbote : So what? I stand by my assessment.
80 Tdscanuck : It's beyond instrumentation...handling qualities and cockpit field-of-view are virtually identical, by design. Having common type rating requires a l
81 PGNCS : Yes the 757 and 767 have a common type rating. The handling qualities are very dissimilar, as are many systems. You put your finger on it when you sa
82 DocLightning : Care to explain it? To me, the wings are positioned rearward, which makes sense with rear-mounted engines, just like the DC-9 or 727. The gear can ei
83 Tdscanuck : Systems details are often quite different, but the flight crew interface is virtually the same (which is the common type rating requirement). How are
84 AirframeAS : Some of this stuff is already on the newer A320's that are flying today, like the reduced weight spacier interior. I know N201FR and N202FR has that f
85 PGNCS : Systems details are VERY different in many systems on the two aircraft; just take a look at the hydraulic system for the best example. I never said t
86 Tdscanuck : The 787 has split annunciators and both the light and EICAS (depending on the system) are just cues to look up at the overhead panel, so clearly ther
87 PGNCS : I can't address the 787 systems obviously, but if, in fact, they opted for a system like the 737 with half of the annunciators on one side of the gla
88 Post contains links Tdscanuck : The split-annunciation isn't on the 787...it's got prioritized EICAS just like the 757/767/777. The part that I meant was the same was the general ph
89 Brendows : In addition to what Tom has listed: development and certification cost.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus A320 Enhanced Series, Boeing Reaction?
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...
Airbus A320 Electrical Failure Question. posted Mon Nov 28 2005 14:17:41 by TheBigOne
Airbus A320 4 Weel Main Landing Gear? posted Tue Oct 11 2005 23:06:58 by Qantas744ER
Airbus A320 Pushback posted Wed Oct 20 2004 14:51:43 by Lapper
A320/B737 Series Training Aids (CD) posted Mon Mar 8 2004 22:12:10 by Starline
Airbus A320 Flaps/THS On Mcdu posted Wed Jan 22 2003 09:38:01 by Vrandar
Airbus A320 Question posted Fri Mar 29 2002 13:42:03 by Mb339
Airbus A320 Autoland posted Fri Jun 8 2001 18:05:23 by Mb339
Airbus A320-100 Specs? posted Tue Jun 5 2001 03:12:14 by B777
Airbus A320 posted Tue Mar 27 2001 00:10:39 by Mr Spaceman
Flaps On Airbus A320/330/340 posted Wed Jan 10 2001 21:57:13 by Archie

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format