Is the A360, the next big Airbus-project, an A310-class-plane?

Brixerl · Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:55 am

All the development programs at Airbus are in the final stages. Lots of technical resources are freed up. Financial status seems healthy. Whats the next big step forward? Silence at Airbus.

Status quo:
A32Xneo: ramp up difficulties with PW-engines.
A330neo: introduction planned mid-2018. Speculation about a 251 tonnes variant.
A350XWB: first delivery of 1000-variant is imminent. A350-900ULR next target.
A380: neo-version will not be launched in the near future. plus-version launched 2017 (available 2020).

What next?
Stretching the A32X (A322) is possible, but at this stage Airbus doesn’t see the need to do so. A further stretch of the A350XWB is or was explored.

Achilles heele at Airbus?
The biggest gap seems to be between the A321 and the A350, with the the A330neo as a stopgap measure, but not for eternity. Even with that, there is a big gap between A321 and A330 with a top product placed in this area by Boeing (787) and a further product rumored (797).

It seems to be a must, that Airbus at least has to explore its possibilities in this market-segment. An A330neo and an A322 will not do, if a 797 is going to come. Will we see something similar from Airbus? A revival of an A310-class-plane. For its time, the A310 was popular. Is the A360, the next big Airbus-project, an A310-class-plane?

CarlosSi · Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:44 am

Airbus has said the a321NeoLR is this "MOM" aircraft that airlines supposedly want for a 757 successor, and such a stubby, wide-body aircraft would not sell well as they point out to their a310 and Boeing's 767-200 (which I've pointed out, sold poorly because stretches were available, although the a310 isn't quite a shortened a300).

That'd be a nice name though; a360 for an all around aircraft; short-haul on some days, long-haul on others (up to 8-9 hours I mean, not ultra-long haul). Their response to a 797 would indeed be an a322 with a new wing, if they choose to go for it.

The a370 and a390 are still unused.

Perhaps an a330 neo or a350-1000 replacement? Both aircraft are a long-ways from replacing, the latter isn't even in service yet or only a few of them are flying!

seahawk · Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:11 am

Surely it would be nothing like a A310, short and stubby is not good for your aerodynamics.

Momo1435 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:45 am

I can't not see Airbus doing this A322, maybe they will even make it different enough from A321 to call it the A360. And there's only 1 reason why they will do it, their customers wanting Airbus to built this plane.

Other then that there are not too many options for a new project. The A3511, A380neo will only go ahead if the market for the largest planes rebounds. Going into direct competition with Boeing with a similar MoM plane as them will also not be good for profit margins. The A350neo depends on the engine developments, it's no likely to come before 2025, it probably won't be a big change anyway. But a new improved A358 might then become an then to replace the A330neo.

Not jumping into any completely new project straight away could be good news for investors though, cashing in on the current new products for a while.

inferno · Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:01 am

At this point both A & B are exploring a long narrowbody or a small elliptical widebody, the two most plausible designs for the MoM. Either of them would not want to compete head on with this one. Either design would have compromises against each other. If Boeing goes for a small elliptical widebody, Airbus will go for an A322/A323 stretch, and vice versa. So this rumored A360 could be Airbus's short elliptical widebody just in case Boeing went for a long narrowbody. They're just waiting for each other to be the first mover.

Francoflier · Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:04 am

Airbus will probably sit on their hands until Boeing finalises the MOM/797 design.
They can then gauge the market for it and decide on whether they want to embark on a clean sheet to compete or whether to just give the 320 family a new wing and a stretch.

I personally vote for the 'A322' option.
A new wing would allow to stretch the family towards the 230 seat range and allow to keep offering the popular A320 and A321 with that new wing.
The A319 would be dumped, cockpit commonality and SFF would be retained, the investment required would be moderate, so would the risk.

Boeing778X · Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:10 am

Whatever Airbus does next, it's going to be influenced by Boeing's MoM, whatever it may be.

And they are going to respond, whether it'd be an A322 or something else.

reidar76 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:23 am

There is one option for Airbus that has not been mentioned, that is, a new aircraft smaller than the A320 family. The A318 and A319 are not selling. Airbus subsidiary, ATR, is still the largest turboprop manufacturer, but the ATR design is old, so that position might be lost if nothing is done.

There is increased competition from Bombardier, Embraer and Mitsubishi in this market segment. I think Airbus might be considering a clean sheet, maybe hybrid-electric, all composite, short range turboprop, probably around 70 to 130 seats (1-class). Remember that nearly all delivered A320neo aircraft are now configured +/- 180 seats. Should Airbus leave the market below 180 seats to the competition?

Please note at fuel-efficiency is way better for turboprops than for turbojet engines.

Brixerl · Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:36 am

@reidar76

Very good point: I often thought about that. It would be a surprising, but very interesting move. One year ago, there was the rumor, that Bombardier was offered to Airbus, but Airbus declined. Probably because they didn't want a ready product with the - fantastic - CS-family, but they plan to go by themselves for commonality reasons with their A32X family. Who knows...

45272455674 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:55 am

Airbus should just wait and see what Boeing does, and then do the same thing, only better and faster to market.

Otherwise the other thing is to do something very brave and develop a revolutionary aircraft in secrecy and surprise everyone with it. That would be hard to do given the amount of spotters everywhere and even consider that fairly secretive military aircraft that haven't been launched get spotted sometimes.

There is only one kind of plane that can change everything up completely, but it'll take quite a lot to develop it. We can't keep going slower forever.

parapente · Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:06 am

The 'new' Board at Airbus/EADS have made it clear that making profits is now the main driver (as it should be) and following past 787 cost over-overruns and the 748i debacle so is Boeing.So no more 'blue skies' projects.
Airbus does not need to move first as they have the A321lr.In any case they need to get it flying first and maximise orders -you would hardly offer an alternative before it flew!
Boeing really have their hands full with the massive 777x programme and the 737-10 (and the 767 tanker).So no rush there either -hence no launch from either.
Airlines always want the manufacturers to launch new products -it costs them nothing!

RalXWB · Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:29 am

In the end Airbus will do what´s in its best interest and what its customers want.

Dutchy · Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:45 am

I am sure Airbus is exploring or has explored all of the above. Whatever is next for Airbus will indeed be influenced by what Boeing will do. But Boeing will blink first. Airbus has the edge with the NB (A32X/B737), nicely placed with the A330NEO and A350 versus the 787 and 777 combo. 777 isn't selling as well as Boeing hoped, so the question is if there is a real marked to address, same for the A380, the plus is a modest investment, so that will be done, the NEO not before 2025.
So I think Airbus will see what the Boeing's MoM will be and will respond accordingly. If it is going to be a new plane for the 250 - 300 marked with true transatlantic range remains to be seen.

I am curious to see if Boeing can make that plane efficient.

Slash787 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:20 am

Well there is the A330neo and A350. I honestly can't say what the next big thing would be. Maybe a stretch of the A321.

But Another A310 makes no sense at the moment.

Planesmart · Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:06 pm

Francoflier wrote:
Airbus will probably sit on their hands until Boeing finalises the MOM/797 design.

If Airbus launch an A360, it will give Boeing senior management stronger arguments to persuade the Board to sign off the 797.

Both boards want to cash in existing projects, have been pushing margins out, are waiting for new engine technology (and engine makers want to cash in on current projects too), so surely we are headed to a period of no new models, where neither A or B rock the boat.

Also the financial bar to launch a completely new model family is set very high at Boeing. The Board approved 737 derivative models, but signing off a completely new model that must inevitably cannibalise some 737 and 787 if to be a viable mainstream rather than niche model, would be unacceptable.

mwhcvt · Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:20 pm

The thing is there's just not the demand for a shorter range or smaller wide body any more most operators of the type dumped it years ago in favour of NB class aircraft, which at a time when the A310 was popular in the PAX market were not as well developed

Airlines would rather use a more capable aircraft on short flights that need the capacity than have an optimised aircraft for those routes as doing so allows them to get the most use out of a single asset as for example CX can take a 77W and use it on say LHR and when it returns send it on a short hope regionally and have it back in time to do a long haul segment back to LHR again

keesje · Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:32 pm

Airbus considered an A330-100 with a modified A310 wing and A330 cockpit and systems in 1999-2000. Then Marketing VP Colin Stuart was doing studies and interviews with airlines. Nothing came of it. Neither from the more straight forward A330-500. (nice now retired guy, had lunch with him recently).

seahawk · Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:34 pm

I never will understand the wait for Boeing logic. To you go to the board of directors and say: "There is a market for about X000 planes that is not served by a fitting product today, so we decided to wait until the competition enters the market so that we can do the same and split the market?"

If there is demand for a 757 replacement with TATL range a A322 with a new wing is a no brainer, so either they will launch soon, or they have found no airline customers for this, which imho does not bode to well for the MoM either.

Channex757 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:38 pm

You are all looking at this from the wrong angle. Aircraft design is increasingly driven by engine design and availability. The next generation of aircraft will use more exotic engines than ever before, with new materials and ways of managing airflow. There could even be breakthrough electric hybrid engines in the foreseeable future.

Any manufacturer going for a clean sheet today is going to lock themselves into older motors. There needs to be a consolidation period now, whilst the engine makers firm up their offerings. That might not be for the next 5-10 years. Ultrafan, the high thrust GTF, and GE's CMC wizardry with small, hot cores. Even the proposed electric fans with a turbine generator!

planespotter20 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:43 pm

I agree with all that’s been said here. I don’t think we’ll see anything new until well after all of the in development aircraft are out and flying with the airlines.

trent768 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:13 pm

I don't think that an A310 sized aircraft will attract much customer. But an A300 sized aircraft with A330-300 range might works.

Swadian · Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:06 pm

Maybe they'll make a giant narrowbody the size and range of the DC-8 Super 60s, with composite materials and a GTF engine. That'll fit in nicely between the A321 and A350.

atypical · Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:11 pm

Channex757 wrote:
You are all looking at this from the wrong angle. Aircraft design is increasingly driven by engine design and availability. The next generation of aircraft will use more exotic engines than ever before, with new materials and ways of managing airflow. There could even be breakthrough electric hybrid engines in the foreseeable future.

Any manufacturer going for a clean sheet today is going to lock themselves into older motors. There needs to be a consolidation period now, whilst the engine makers firm up their offerings. That might not be for the next 5-10 years. Ultrafan, the high thrust GTF, and GE's CMC wizardry with small, hot cores. Even the proposed electric fans with a turbine generator!

I think you are right about the turbine/electric fan. Batteries are on the verge from jumping off LiPo to Graphene and Pratt's geared engine has yet to live up to the promises. Separating the thrust from power generation allows designers to maximize the efficiency while not needing to make tradeoffs turbine fans do. The only issue I see is that this is with such a fundamental shift in propulsion that taking advantage of those benefits may require the fuselage to be redesigned too.

It is my sense that there is possibly one more generation airliner utilizing the current engines before Boeing and Airbus start designing replacements for all their current models based using turbine/electric fan as the standard.

Channex757 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:19 pm

There was some traction a couple of years ago for a shorter bodied, cropped wing derivative of the A350 as a short to medium haul version, possibly using Advance or (if ready) Ultrafan engines. This would have indeed been more in the A300 segment of the market but considerably more efficient.

The re-use of the XWB cross-section and much development work would keep the costs down. That expansive XWB wing wouldn't be needed but much of the technology again would be relevant.

Antarius · Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:25 pm

The A360 should be a flying sphere...

B777LRF · Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:38 pm

seahawk wrote:
(-) short and stubby is not good for your aerodynamics.

Eh, actually, that's exactly what it is!

cschleic · Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:48 pm

Antarius wrote:
The A360 should be a flying sphere...

That's a good one.

As pointed out above, Airbus is in the wonderful position of being able to wait and let Boeing go first, then respond. They have so many orders for the 320/321, time is on their side. I understand why the 321 is so popular, but the fact that it's using a decades-old wing (other than the sharklets) is kind of remarkable. It reminds me of an interview in AW&ST a while back with a Boeing engineer. He pointed out that the general configuration and aerodynamics of planes had reached a mature point. (Looking at the 787 and 350, they aren't all that different). The only game changers would be in propulsion or materials; everything else would be incremental. So maybe it's a matter of adapting very successful current sized planes to new materials and engines (e.g. GTFs, etc.) that will be the next steps.

Shrinking planes usually isn't economical, other than very specific niches such as the 747SP.

packsonflight · Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:52 pm

Airbus seems to be looking into narrowbody sized carbon wing, at least they have released photo of carbon center wingbox. Quite possibly they are planning to build A350 like wing with 2H2E systems. It is smart to debut this new design on the A322 which is relatively low volume production compared to the rest of the 320 family.

That way they can gain experience building this new wing and get the learning curve going before submitting to high volume production for the rest of the 320 family.

seahawk · Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:02 pm

B777LRF wrote:
seahawk wrote:
(-) short and stubby is not good for your aerodynamics.

Eh, actually, that's exactly what it is!

No, you get a bad ratio of drag to cabin space.

beaconinbound · Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:10 pm

Hybrid electric configurations only make sense in two cases: If electrical "slave" engines are used to evenly distribute airflow with the goal of a drastic reduction of various forms of drag. This is basically a jet-design but with much lower operating speeds and most probably with very different fuselage designs than today. This will come into play when the energy cost ans/or market demand requires another 35% reduction in direct operating cost - and is willing to accept cruise speeds of around 0.6.

The second configuration targets the reduction of installed conventional power thus optimizing the design for very short hops of under one hour. There the electrical engines would provide take off power allowing the optimization of the conventional engines for cruise only. This is also very complex and the business will start to look good if reduction of direct operating cost is the main goal.

The business case for any form of A310 successor requires a very versatile aircraft because it needs to serve many different markets - from TATL to Asian domestic. The lack of versatility would hamper its business case. In my point of view, the MOM can only be done by one manufacturer, and its probably Boeing.

This degree of versatility mandates a "now experiments" and "keep your cost under control" approach with some evolutionary progress here and there but not as much as the 787 combined in one design.

Stefan

tealnz · Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:19 pm

Can anyone actually quantify the drag penalty of an A310-type fuselage? The laws of physics haven’t changed since the A300 and A310 were built...

On the positive side the original A300 fuselage profile has proven passenger appeal. The hold will take LD3s two-abreast. A330 cockpit and many systems could be reused. An optimised wing, wing box and landing gear would bring weight down. We’d presumably see a pair of aircraft, with a new “A310” taking the 4500nm plus routes and a new A300 becoming the CASM queen on shorter routes. All depends on a new engine, of course.

by738 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:24 pm

Are airlines not just going with stretched narrowbodies like A321 neos/LR exactly because there is no alternative?

Francoflier · Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:40 pm

tealnz wrote:
Can anyone actually quantify the drag penalty of an A310-type fuselage? The laws of physics haven’t changed since the A300 and A310 were built...

It is not about the absolute drag value, it's about the drag/weight ratio.

For a given volume, a longer and thinner fuselage will have a lower drag than a shorter but wider one. (very simplistically speaking)

So long and thin is better than fat and short...
...note that I'm only talking about aircraft fuselages here.

HHScot · Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:48 pm

Francoflier wrote:
So long and thin is better than fat and short...
...note that I'm only talking about aircraft fuselages here.

Depends upon where they are being put into service!

aerolimani · Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:49 pm

It's top secret. My source says it's to be a flying saucer, the A360°

ptharris · Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:06 pm

Curious if Airbus would ever do a rear-mounted engine aircraft like the DC9/MD80 or 717. I dunno... maybe the market is saturated with regional aircraft manufacturers. I've just never enjoyed flying in the stretched Cessna feeling of a CRJ or something of that sort.

Channex757 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:24 pm

Francoflier wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Can anyone actually quantify the drag penalty of an A310-type fuselage? The laws of physics haven’t changed since the A300 and A310 were built...

It is not about the absolute drag value, it's about the drag/weight ratio.

For a given volume, a longer and thinner fuselage will have a lower drag than a shorter but wider one. (very simplistically speaking)

So long and thin is better than fat and short...
...note that I'm only talking about aircraft fuselages here.

Airframers are starting to get to grips with the various issues of airframe drag. There are some novel new approaches out there which could make shorter, stubbier fuselages work even better than long and thin.

Much of it depends on how the turbulent flow is managed as it leaves the aircraft, and a possible solution would be a very different look to the empennage. There is even a project that envisages feeding this boundary layer drag into a new generation of tail-mounted engine where it is mixed and smoothed out as it enters the engine.

I've probably made a mess of describing this but simply put, the rough air next to the skin gets diverted into a tail mounted motor rather than spinning off as a vortex.

B777LRF · Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:21 pm

seahawk wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
seahawk wrote:
(-) short and stubby is not good for your aerodynamics.

Eh, actually, that's exactly what it is!

No, you get a bad ratio of drag to cabin space.

Drag to cabin space ratio? I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but aerodynamically a short/stubby fuselage is still more efficient than a long/slender ditto. Hence a 737-600 is less draggy than a -900. Might not make the airline more money, but that's economics and not physics.

tjh8402 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:39 pm

What about the A400? Does that program need any sort of help with its development? Seems to still be struggling along.

seahawk wrote:
I never will understand the wait for Boeing logic. To you go to the board of directors and say: "There is a market for about X000 planes that is not served by a fitting product today, so we decided to wait until the competition enters the market so that we can do the same and split the market?"

If there is demand for a 757 replacement with TATL range a A322 with a new wing is a no brainer, so either they will launch soon, or they have found no airline customers for this, which imho does not bode to well for the MoM either.

launching a new airplane is an expensive risk. Airbus feels they already have the best option for those looking in this segment with the A321LR, with the A330 NEO being competitive at the top of the segment. Is there a hole in the middle? Sure, but Airbus believes they already are going to get most of the sales so what's their incentive to do something else, especially since it would give Boeing a clearer target to shoot at? Let Boeing take the big risk and establish the baseline and Airbus can figure out the best way to respond accordingly.

BREECH · Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:01 pm

GAWD! Not "MOM" again! How many threads about it do we really need. The whole "MOM" concept is simply unrealistic. A320 covers the narrow-body short-to-medium-haul market. A330 and A350 more than cover medium-to-long range. A380 is the prestige white elephant showcasing the company's abilities. MOM will never happen, neither at Boeing, nor at Airbus.

As for the spare engineering capacity freeing up, I think it's high-time to start designing the A320 replacement. Boeing, if it survives the next decade, will learn from the embarassing spanking it got from Airbus in the MAX vs. NEO kerfuffle and will respond. Airbus needs to be ahead of the game. I think it's already on the drawing boards. It'll take 8-10 years to develop. We have no idea what it's going to be like. Airbus doesn't know what it's going to be like. So their engineers will be VERY busy figuring it all out.

Hey, I got a catchy name!!! A320UFO - Ultra Fuselage Option.

LightningZ71 · Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:02 pm

My feelings on this are to focus on the markets at hand with a low risk project. The A319 is not doing well in the market. The A320 is still performing well. The A321 is better than anyone imagined. Focus on what they are doing well and improve it. The next project should be a next-gen A320 series. Take the A321 as the base model and optimize the wing for that, with improvements in design and materials. Replace the existing A320 frame length with one that's about 2-3 rows longer. Add an A322 that's about 4-5 rows longer than the A321. With the weight and drag savings from the redone wing, the A321 will gaine comfortable trans-atlantic range. The A322 will be the intermediate range point to point hauler. The A320 will be the long and thin market option. By the time this comes out, the existing NEO engines will be in their mid-life revision phase and will offer even better fuel burn and wing life than they currently do. Build thousands and profit!

keesje · Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:12 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
My feelings on this are to focus on the markets at hand with a low risk project. The A319 is not doing well in the market. The A320 is still performing well. The A321 is better than anyone imagined. Focus on what they are doing well and improve it. The next project should be a next-gen A320 series. Take the A321 as the base model and optimize the wing for that, with improvements in design and materials. Replace the existing A320 frame length with one that's about 2-3 rows longer. Add an A322 that's about 4-5 rows longer than the A321. With the weight and drag savings from the redone wing, the A321 will gaine comfortable trans-atlantic range. The A322 will be the intermediate range point to point hauler. The A320 will be the long and thin market option. By the time this comes out, the existing NEO engines will be in their mid-life revision phase and will offer even better fuel burn and wing life than they currently do. Build thousands and profit!

CRHoward · Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:27 pm

I don't see Airbus building a direct competitor with the 797. If Boeing does build a small wide body with 7 abreast economy seating, I would expect Airbus to build a slightly larger 8 abreast aircraft fitting above the 797 and below the 787-9. Boeing will be all in with the 797 for 2024 and the NSA for 2030. They would be unable to check Airbus. Building the a322 would be another temporary stop gap effort by Airbus. The next generation of narrow body aircraft will quickly displace it. I'm sure Boeing would like to see Airbus throw away this opportunity by committing valuable resources to the a322 and the a380neo.

robsaw · Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:02 pm

B777LRF wrote:
seahawk wrote:
B777LRF wrote:

Eh, actually, that's exactly what it is!

No, you get a bad ratio of drag to cabin space.

Drag to cabin space ratio? I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but aerodynamically a short/stubby fuselage is still more efficient than a long/slender ditto. Hence a 737-600 is less draggy than a -900. Might not make the airline more money, but that's economics and not physics.

737-600 has less TOTAL drag than a -900 but the -900 has less drag per unit length than the -600. That's physics and economics.

atcsundevil · Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:54 am

This topic is about a theoretical A360 program, not Boeing, nor Airbus vs. Boeing. Please stick to the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

c933103 · Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:38 pm

Streching A320 further and moving the aircraft up, then in 2030s launch new design to compete against NMA? At the time the stretched A320 can still function for the MoM segment

DrPaul · Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:07 pm

[code][/code]

Swadian wrote:
Maybe they'll make a giant narrowbody the size and range of the DC-8 Super 60s, with composite materials and a GTF engine. That'll fit in nicely between the A321 and A350.

Then we'll have a reincarnation of the Boeing 757-300. That will get half the people on this website very excited, and the other half right brassed off.

redroo · Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:58 pm

What would it take to give the A321LR some serious range? Thinking 10,000km to connect anywhere in Asia to anywhere in Oz and NZ.

YIMBY · Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:18 am

reidar76 wrote:
There is one option for Airbus that has not been mentioned, that is, a new aircraft smaller than the A320 family. The A318 and A319 are not selling. Airbus subsidiary, ATR, is still the largest turboprop manufacturer, but the ATR design is old, so that position might be lost if nothing is done.

There is increased competition from Bombardier, Embraer and Mitsubishi in this market segment. I think Airbus might be considering a clean sheet, maybe hybrid-electric, all composite, short range turboprop, probably around 70 to 130 seats (1-class). Remember that nearly all delivered A320neo aircraft are now configured +/- 180 seats. Should Airbus leave the market below 180 seats to the competition?

Please note at fuel-efficiency is way better for turboprops than for turbojet engines.

I second that.

As much as I want, I do not expect any cleansheet Airbus widebody during my lifetime, unless there emerges an unavoidable threat by other competitors. All I expect is shrinks, stretches and tweaks, some of which could be major. While 330 will be replaced some day, it may not be very soon. Rather than a new frame we might see 330-700 with shorter body and a smaller wing.

Instead the sub-320 market is left for others and there may be needs to have a compatible plane in that sector. Nevertheless, an "317" as 318 with smaller wing might do as a poor man's solution, if they also rewing 322, though a new 2+3 or 2+2 body might be more optimal for 100-130 pax.

Of course, as the wing (with appropriate engines) makes the plane you may ask whether a new wing warrants the plane to be called 360 or 370 (certainly does if there is a major change in propulsion). In any case the commercial name is just marketing and certification is a different issue (like MD-80 ...Boeing-717 had their formal certificates as DC-9-something). It is just certification issues that push for gradual changes that inherit previous testing as much as possible.

As for engines I do not expect anything electrical, rather a classic turboprop. Even a hybrid may add unnecessary weight, though it may have other advantages, as noted below, like better weight distribution if power production and propulsion can be separated.

(Military sector may have other projects to keep engineers busy, but that is beyond this topic.)

Arion640 · Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:40 am

CRHoward wrote:
I don't see Airbus building a direct competitor with the 797. If Boeing does build a small wide body with 7 abreast economy seating, I would expect Airbus to build a slightly larger 8 abreast aircraft fitting above the 797 and below the 787-9. Boeing will be all in with the 797 for 2024 and the NSA for 2030. They would be unable to check Airbus. Building the a322 would be another temporary stop gap effort by Airbus. The next generation of narrow body aircraft will quickly displace it. I'm sure Boeing would like to see Airbus throw away this opportunity by committing valuable resources to the a322 and the a380neo.

So a 797 to 787-9 gap. Basically the A330neo then?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net