User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2608
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:38 pm

Best Airbus project for next decade is the A380 replacement. A new VLA, probably a twin but not necessarily:

  • 80m wing, ~12 AR, large winglets extending effective span to ~290ft
  • triple-bubble using circle to maximize MD width (whereas A380 wastes max width at shoulder height)
  • CFRP fuse and wing, perhaps CNTP belly fairing (CNTP already used for non-bearing structures on military aircraft)
  • OEW well south of 500k lbs, total engine thrust below 200k lbs
  • lower COC trip cost than a 777-9 with at least 50% more capacity

viewtopic.php?t=776333
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:19 pm

Egerton wrote:
P&W can wind up their GTF 5% or perhaps 10%, and this will get your Plan A longer A321 with less range. The new wing to carry more fuel will need more power, which I doubt can come from the P&W GTF.


Pratt & Whitney has announced a thrust bump to 35klbf as an option for the A321LR. A 5% to 10% increase over what's already coming in 2019, would give us between 37klbf and 39klbf.

A rule of thumb is that the ratio between thrust and MTOW is a factor of three (for a twin-engine commercial aircraft). In other words, 33klbf is good for 99t MTOW, 35klbf gives us 105t, 39klbf 117t. The A321LR has a MTOW of 97t.

Increasing the range of the A321 and doing a stretched variant is all about rightsizing the wingspan. The A321LR is under-winged at 97t and compensates with higher thrust. For me it seems that the current PW GTF engine is sufficient for a narrowbody MOM, especially so with a 5% to 10% thrust bump.

It as been reported that Boeing as been asking the engine manufacturers for an engine between 40klbf and 50klbf for their larger, heavier widebody MOM. RR, CFM responded with prospects of new engines, while PW told Boeing they could "wind up" their current GTF engine.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:17 am

Dutchy wrote:
I can turn your question around in saying why are you so convinced that climate change and the whole debate will not affect aviation and thus Airbus in this timeframe? Especially the information offered by people on this forum whom actually are in the known and explained it to you.


Simple. Despite your worries about the Paris agreement, aviation is excluded. Even if it wasn't the agreement is voluntary and un-enforceable, so it doesn't matter. As far as other future agreements you insist are coming they are going to be created by unknown policy makers who will meet at an unknown future date to create unknown requirements. These requirements will be voluntary and un-enforceable and no organization with any authority to change any of this exists. So in short, the idea that Airbus needs to take large steps to comply with the Paris agreement or other unknown non-existent agreements is ridiculous.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:32 am

IPFreely wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I can turn your question around in saying why are you so convinced that climate change and the whole debate will not affect aviation and thus Airbus in this timeframe? Especially the information offered by people on this forum whom actually are in the known and explained it to you.


Simple. Despite your worries about the Paris agreement, aviation is excluded. Even if it wasn't the agreement is voluntary and un-enforceable, so it doesn't matter. As far as other future agreements you insist are coming they are going to be created by unknown policy makers who will meet at an unknown future date to create unknown requirements. These requirements will be voluntary and un-enforceable and no organization with any authority to change any of this exists. So in short, the idea that Airbus needs to take large steps to comply with the Paris agreement or other unknown non-existent agreements is ridiculous.


Lot's of assumptions, some are incorrect and mostly are totally beside what is happening in the world, outside of the aviation world. And you haven't taken into account Corsia, explained brilliantly by Planesmart, he is an insider, I am not, so far better to listen to him and please pay attention to the word mandatory. ;-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:11 am

RJMAZ wrote:
More than half of the narrowbody flights are under 500nm and the amount of airports accepting commercial jets is increasing every year.

If fuel and noise restrictions get worse a large turboprop would work very well. The 8000hp next gen regional turboprop that is in development would suit this design perfectly.

This design has 50+% commonality with the CS100. Shared fuselage, cockpit, tail and landing gear.

This will open up more conveniently located airports that may usually not allow jets.


From my understanding, an ATR using CSeries technology/parts could only happen if and only if Airbus acquires all of Bombardier's share in the CSeries program. Bombardier and ATR are direct competitors, I doubt Bombardier would agree to anything that benefits ATR without something in return. However, if Bombardier decides to exit the commercial aviation sphere entirely, then perhaps they won't care.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:52 am

Dutchy wrote:
Lot's of assumptions, some are incorrect and mostly are totally beside what is happening in the world, outside of the aviation world. And you haven't taken into account Corsia, explained brilliantly by Planesmart, he is an insider, I am not, so far better to listen to him and please pay attention to the word mandatory. ;-)


Corsia is voluntary until 2027. At that point it supposedly becomes mandatory but with no person or organization having any authority to monitor or enforce anything, calling it mandatory is a joke. You can continue to live in your own world and wonder why Airbus is not taking "big steps" as you think they need to be doing.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:00 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Smart spin RJMAZ, that ATR150. The lower part is from early CSeries materials, right? So indeed CSeries could be a 6-abreast CASM king. But the production proces for the CSeries needs improvement. (I don't want to offend someone with this statement, it was funding that created the problem. That's the reason BBD required a partnership for the CSeries).

Yes that's the plan. The shorter the flight the more willing passengers are at accepting 17" seats. 6ab is on the C series cross section would be fine for trips under 500nm. Seats would be on par with the Q400 and ATR.

Obviously with a smaller wing with approx half of the fuel capacity, the maximum takeoff weight would be much lower than the CS100. The wingbox, fuselage and landing gear would appear oversized but you must remember the strength of any metal component is determined by not only weight but the number of cycles. The ATR150 would have much more takeoff and landing cycles so the extra strength may be highly valuable.

It would be amazing if the new smaller wings could bolt right up to the standard CS100 wing box. That could make commonality well above 50%. The tall landing gear to hang the geared fans underneath the CS100 would give enough clearly for turboprops to be mounted on top of a low mounted wing.

Obviously this isn't as likely to happen as the A322 or A350-2000. But the ATR150 would have extremely low CASM. The low wing also looks very cool in my opinion. More jet like in appearance will help it being accepted by the public.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:25 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
More than half of the narrowbody flights are under 500nm and the amount of airports accepting commercial jets is increasing every year.

If fuel and noise restrictions get worse a large turboprop would work very well. The 8000hp next gen regional turboprop that is in development would suit this design perfectly.

This design has 50+% commonality with the CS100. Shared fuselage, cockpit, tail and landing gear.

This will open up more conveniently located airports that may usually not allow jets.


From my understanding, an ATR using CSeries technology/parts could only happen if and only if Airbus acquires all of Bombardier's share in the CSeries program. Bombardier and ATR are direct competitors, I doubt Bombardier would agree to anything that benefits ATR without something in return. However, if Bombardier decides to exit the commercial aviation sphere entirely, then perhaps they won't care.


Since Airbus has a controlling stake in the JV with BBD, they can technically put such a turboprop under the C-series banner, of course, such an action may be met with protests from the BBD side, but that's another matter...
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:19 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
Since Airbus has a controlling stake in the JV with BBD, they can technically put such a turboprop under the C-series banner, of course, such an action may be met with protests from the BBD side, but that's another matter...

It would be interesting if the prop version would even need to give 50% of the profit to Bombardier. If Airbus fully funds development and build it on their own production line then Bombardier couldn't do much. Airbus can order all the required CS100 parts from the same suppliers that supply Bombardier. It could potentially get ugly. If Airbus currently owns the design and intellectual property of the C series then they also own the rights to order these CS100 parts from the suppliers for their own prop aircraft.

What's Interesting is ATR proposed a wider larger turboprop tight 6AB about 8-10 years ago. The proposal was nicknamed by enthusiasts the turboliner.

Image

I strongly believe the C series was purchased with the intention to make the turboliner. Airbus originally squashed the idea as it would threaten the A320 on short routes, but now that the A320 has moved up to 200+ seats they might rethink the 6ab prop.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:58 am

IPFreely wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Lot's of assumptions, some are incorrect and mostly are totally beside what is happening in the world, outside of the aviation world. And you haven't taken into account Corsia, explained brilliantly by Planesmart, he is an insider, I am not, so far better to listen to him and please pay attention to the word mandatory. ;-)


Corsia is voluntary until 2027. At that point it supposedly becomes mandatory but with no person or organization having any authority to monitor or enforce anything, calling it mandatory is a joke. You can continue to live in your own world and wonder why Airbus is not taking "big steps" as you think they need to be doing.



I get it, you are a climate skeptic (denier) or extremely skeptical/pessimistic that humankind can solve this. And I am an optimist and there I believe Airbus will need to adapt to stay in business in the 2040'ish. You can argue all you want that not everything has been worked out and therefore it isn't worth the money for the paper which it got ridden on, but in the end, I made a prediction on the future and you don't subscribe to that, fine we will see, neither you nor me are in the driving seat for this, we are mere observers. You will not convince me from your prediction and I will not convince you, fine then let's agree to watch what will happen and perhaps have a little wager on this: put your money where your mouth is: a nice full bottle of whisky, good for you? And to formulate it smart: in 2030 there will be an enforceable system to reduce global emissions in aviation. Good for you?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:09 am

RJMAZ wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
Since Airbus has a controlling stake in the JV with BBD, they can technically put such a turboprop under the C-series banner, of course, such an action may be met with protests from the BBD side, but that's another matter...

It would be interesting if the prop version would even need to give 50% of the profit to Bombardier. If Airbus fully funds development and build it on their own production line then Bombardier couldn't do much. Airbus can order all the required CS100 parts from the same suppliers that supply Bombardier. It could potentially get ugly. If Airbus currently owns the design and intellectual property of the C series then they also own the rights to order these CS100 parts from the suppliers for their own prop aircraft.

What's Interesting is ATR proposed a wider larger turboprop tight 6AB about 8-10 years ago. The proposal was nicknamed by enthusiasts the turboliner.

Image

I strongly believe the C series was purchased with the intention to make the turboliner. Airbus originally squashed the idea as it would threaten the A320 on short routes, but now that the A320 has moved up to 200+ seats they might rethink the 6ab prop.


It is an interesting concept. Airbus is said to have blocked the development of the proposed ATR92 (90 seats). That decision is quite odd since Airbus haven't got a product in that category. This proposed craft will compete in some ways with the CS300 so a direct in-house competitor, why would Airbus give the green light for this, but doesn't for the ATR92 (low hanging fruit).
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:48 am

The CS frame is way too heavy for a prop. The design MTOW would be offering way too much range. If you do a new airliner today it needs to be fully optimized, which means every part needs to be optimized for the design target. You can not afford to use over specified major parts.
 
parapente
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:04 am

I agree Reidar76.The maths is solid -and Boeing can do the maths as well.Airbus could produce their version of a mom without the need of a new engine by letting a new wing do more of the work.As such they could produce it in half the time/cost if they wanted to.
I believe it's half the reason Boeing has been talking 5-5.5knm range since that is not possible with present engines.But is there a market up there?You are getting awful close to a 788 at that point.
 
grbauc
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:08 am

Dutchy wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The biggest question is how the aviation world will meet the Paris agreement, large steps need to be taken in the 2020's.


Have you read the Paris agreement? International aviation is specifically excluded. Even if it was included, the agreement is voluntary and un-enforceable -- there are no sanctions or penalties for non-compliance. So no steps -- large or small -- are needed.


Besides CORSIA, exemption of aviation and ships are a peris victory. Yes, they did they lobby work very well, but in the end, they will have to get rid of fossil fuels. Paris agreement has a very clear goal: max. 2 degrees rising of the overall temperature. At the moment voluntarily, but that will be a thing of the past in the near future. It will become enforceable. What do you think is going to happen otherwise? We are dealing with a potential global disaster and needs to be threaded as such. Do you think all the countries will invest in this and they will leave some countries alone which are not willing to do their part (read America).

This is the major problem of our generation which needs to be solved and given the timeframe, it is the timeframe in which there are great steps to be taken towards a cleaner environment so it will have an impact on aviation.


Prediction the world has a whole will never be able to become the utopia that you believe will be required to save the world from your described potential global disaster. WW3 and 4 will happen long before the world is able to enforce a world that returns to a hunter and gather type of organized society you seem to dreaming of.. I'm all for getting discussion and direction and implementation of better and more rational actions on better care for the world we live in. I 100% believe the earth is changing and that man is playing a role in it and has a responsibility to improve his/its foot print for long term health of the planet. How much of the earths warming is caused by Mankind and and not natural cycles? Scientist in the 70's thought we were in a mini ice age?. Even if MANKIND is 100% responsible for the rapid changes do you really believe mankind can make all the changes with out the world going in to mass revolt due to starvation riots and the such that would be needed.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:45 am

grbauc wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
IPFreely wrote:

Have you read the Paris agreement? International aviation is specifically excluded. Even if it was included, the agreement is voluntary and un-enforceable -- there are no sanctions or penalties for non-compliance. So no steps -- large or small -- are needed.


Besides CORSIA, exemption of aviation and ships are a peris victory. Yes, they did they lobby work very well, but in the end, they will have to get rid of fossil fuels. Paris agreement has a very clear goal: max. 2 degrees rising of the overall temperature. At the moment voluntarily, but that will be a thing of the past in the near future. It will become enforceable. What do you think is going to happen otherwise? We are dealing with a potential global disaster and needs to be threaded as such. Do you think all the countries will invest in this and they will leave some countries alone which are not willing to do their part (read America).

This is the major problem of our generation which needs to be solved and given the timeframe, it is the timeframe in which there are great steps to be taken towards a cleaner environment so it will have an impact on aviation.


Prediction the world has a whole will never be able to become the utopia that you believe will be required to save the world from your described potential global disaster. WW3 and 4 will happen long before the world is able to enforce a world that returns to a hunter and gather type of organized society you seem to dreaming of.. I'm all for getting discussion and direction and implementation of better and more rational actions on better care for the world we live in. I 100% believe the earth is changing and that man is playing a role in it and has a responsibility to improve his/its foot print for long term health of the planet. How much of the earths warming is caused by Mankind and and not natural cycles? Scientist in the 70's thought we were in a mini ice age?. Even if MANKIND is 100% responsible for the rapid changes do you really believe mankind can make all the changes with out the world going in to mass revolt due to starvation riots and the such that would be needed.


"hunter and gather type of organized society " :lol:

I believe we, as mankind, have no other option than to kick off our fossil fuel addiction. I also believe technical solutions will ensure, in the end, that we will not go backward, but forwards, like we have always done. Given this paradigm, Airbus needs to react to it, or be gone (same goes for Boeing and in that sense it is interesting that they are investing in a start-up for an electric aircraft).

Even if you do not believe in human-induced climate change:

Image

https://www.thoughtco.com/cartoons-and- ... ge-2734107
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:52 am

RJMAZ wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
What's Interesting is ATR proposed a wider larger turboprop tight 6AB about 8-10 years ago. The proposal was nicknamed by enthusiasts the turboliner.

Image

I strongly believe the C series was purchased with the intention to make the turboliner. Airbus originally squashed the idea as it would threaten the A320 on short routes, but now that the A320 has moved up to 200+ seats they might rethink the 6ab prop.


My I propose the name A200? (also for military purposes, C130 & C27 replacement.) I think one aspect of it is wrong (the ++). I think it requires a range of at least 1500NM, and it would seat 100-160. Between this A(TR)200 and the ATR72 I think there is stil a market for a ATR92. (4-abreast 40-100 seat prop range, also for military purposes, Airbus CASA [Spain] builds the A400, CN235 and C295, Leonardo the C27J, and ATR the 42 & 72).
I agree BBD has to be involved into ATR otherwise this doesn't work. (Airbus, Leonardo, BBD and D.. could also collaboratively develop a fighter. But this is off topic)
For the US market a regional jet / open rotor might be a beter idea. When a rotor blade fails most of the time parts of it end up inside the cabin. When it's mounted at the rear it can't hurt passengers.
Image


This is a proposal for a development project for Leonardo. A 19-40 seat VTVL plane. hint...
Image
This could replace the Chinook, C212, and Do328.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:09 am

seahawk wrote:
The CS frame is way too heavy for a prop. The design MTOW would be offering way too much range. If you do a new airliner today it needs to be fully optimized, which means every part needs to be optimized for the design target. You can not afford to use over specified major parts.

How do you come to that conclusion?

The CS100 couldn't be more perfect for a fully optimised prop.

The MTOW is determined nearly completely by the size of the wing. The wing will be much smaller on the ATR150 with very little sweep. So the MTOW will be lower than the CS100. The wing will carry at most half of the fuel so range will be roughly equal to that of the ATR72 and Q400.

If you are saying the fuselage tube is overbuilt you will need some proof. It is pretty much state of the art weight wise and with a full economy 6ab cabin there is a very large payload that requires a lot of strength. Remember the life of a fuselage is determined by pressure cycles and the short range aircraft will do more cycles per day.

If it is the landing gear being too strong again the numbers of landings per day will be at least double the average of the CS100. So it needs the extra strength to last 20 years in service.

The lower weight on the large CS100 tyres will reduce pavement loading allowing it to operate from the same regional airports as the ATR72.

Unbolting the CS100 wings from the wing box and slapping a small straight wing with some big props would provide in my opinion 95+% the performance of a clean sheet with probably under 20% of the cost. What an amazing starting point. Airbus can then tweak some parts where required and probably end up with 99% of the performance of a clean sheet.

The CS100 weighs 35T empty and would carry 160 passengers in 6AB.
The Q400 weighs 18T and carries 90 passengers.

CS100 is 218kg empty weight per passenger.
Q400 is 200kg empty weight per passenger.

Let's say the smaller wing and prop engines of the ATR150 reduce the empty weight by only 3T down to 32T. That is 200kg per passenger. That is equal weight per passenger as the Q400.

So the ATR150 with 6ab cabin would be A319's and 737-700's capacity. With an empty weigh 20% lower and fuel burn 30-40% lower it would be unstoppable. There are lots of areas where there are a cluster of short thick routes under an hour.

To discount the idea by simply saying "too heavy" you need some kind of proof.
 
Egerton
Posts: 840
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:26 am

parapente wrote:
I agree Reidar76.The maths is solid -and Boeing can do the maths as well.Airbus could produce their version of a mom without the need of a new engine by letting a new wing do more of the work.As such they could produce it in half the time/cost if they wanted to.
I believe it's half the reason Boeing has been talking 5-5.5knm range since that is not possible with present engines.But is there a market up there?You are getting awful close to a 788 at that point.


Thanks JustSome Dood, Reidar76 and parapente. Not being anything other than a rank amateur, I respect and value your contributions. You all tend to confirm that on the commercial side, an enhanced A321 can be relatively quickly and economically produced with a mildly enhanced version of the existing P&W GTF. It is usually best to build on success, and only 'bet the farm' when absolutely necessary.

No wonder Boeing is still working on its vapourware. If we are correct, it must be a good bet that Airbus is already working towards the hardware of its enhanced A321s as its next step, ahead in priority of other future projects and concepts which one reads about in A.net. Thanks again for your input.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:26 am

Let me use the wingbox as an example. It is designed to handle the big wing with the big tanks, if you change to a prop-wing and make it smaller and lighter you change the whole load regime and the extra material will not be at the places were you would need them for more landing cycles, because your max. landing weight would only go down slightly.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:29 am

IPFreely wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Lot's of assumptions, some are incorrect and mostly are totally beside what is happening in the world, outside of the aviation world. And you haven't taken into account Corsia, explained brilliantly by Planesmart, he is an insider, I am not, so far better to listen to him and please pay attention to the word mandatory. ;-)


Corsia is voluntary until 2027. At that point it supposedly becomes mandatory but with no person or organization having any authority to monitor or enforce anything, calling it mandatory is a joke. You can continue to live in your own world and wonder why Airbus is not taking "big steps" as you think they need to be doing.


The way I read it is that aircraft and shipping have been left out of the agreement because they are problematic at the moment. However to say that it is unenforceable whilst technically true is all but nonsense in the real world. Technically the safety standards of aircraft are nonenforceable as the UK cannot tell an airline in the UAE how to maintain or certify their aircraft and if the UAE want to allow rust buckets around their countries then so be it but there is a way to enforce it through regulatory reciprocity and we see this with certain countries black listing airlines from specific countries from operating flights there.

I don't see how this corsia thing is any different, the US can fly whatever they want internally but if the french say it has to meet regulations X, Y and Z to land here then it either follows the regs or doesn't land.

Fred
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:33 am

Dutchy wrote:
It is an interesting concept. Airbus is said to have blocked the development of the proposed ATR92 (90 seats). That decision is quite odd since Airbus haven't got a product in that category. This proposed craft will compete in some ways with the CS300 so a direct in-house competitor, why would Airbus give the green light for this, but doesn't for the ATR92 (low hanging fruit).

Most people here assume airbus wants to keep CS100 and CS300 alive to slot under the slightly longer ranged A320 family. There is a fair bit of overlap. Developing a prop from the CS100 prop and killing the jet powered CS100 and CS300 actually makes sense. Boeing would have zero response.

They could have just bought C series project for the technology to make a CASM monster prop and the carbon wing tech for the A321.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Most people here assume airbus wants to keep CS100 and CS300 alive to slot under the slightly longer ranged A320 family. There is a fair bit of overlap. Developing a prop from the CS100 prop and killing the jet powered CS100 and CS300 actually makes sense. Boeing would have zero response.

They could have just bought C series project for the technology to make a CASM monster prop and the carbon wing tech for the A321.


Interesting view. I indeed assume that Airbus wants to keep building and selling the CS100/CS300 and kill off the A319 and focus further upgrades to the higher end. The A319NEO isn't selling and with the right CSAM, there is still a need for an aircraft in the 100-150 (180 at the upper end) seat market.

Although a prop indeed makes sense for the European market and the southeast Asian market, lots of city pairs are quite close, well within the sweet spot for such an aircraft: <750 - 1.000nm. A large plus in fuel burn and a marginal minus in speed.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:16 am

Dutchy wrote:
"hunter and gather type of organized society " :lol:

I believe we, as mankind, have no other option than to kick off our fossil fuel addiction. I also believe technical solutions will ensure, in the end, that we will not go backward, but forwards, like we have always done. Given this paradigm, Airbus needs to react to it, or be gone (same goes for Boeing and in that sense it is interesting that they are investing in a start-up for an electric aircraft).

Even if you do not believe in human-induced climate change:

Image

https://www.thoughtco.com/cartoons-and- ... ge-2734107


I think that humans started distorting climate when we transitioned from hunters, gatherers & fishers to farmers. From that point onward humans have changed plant growth.
Dutchy, you show the dutch flag, so let's consider the Netherlands. >50% is below sealevel, and that's by our own doing. We build dams and dikes and lowered water levels, but this stopped sementation (plants dying on flooded lands) and allowed the vegetation in peat-lands to rott, causing the land to subside. I also want to point out that drilling records from the north sea show that during earth's history the North Sea was dry most of the time (during Ice ages). Only in the intermediate warm periods the northsea exists and is flooded. The sealevel of the northsea has been 8m higher than today but also 120m lower. The climate fluctuates in 40k-100k year cycles, but only from the 18 hundreds humans are measuring the climate.
The climate models can't predict El-Ninos and El-Ninas, major climate determining effects.
The invention of the steam engine in the 18th century (combustion engines) enabled humanity to end slavery.

Let's restate what I wrote in my first reply in this topic. I think humans are to stupid to understand the earth climate system. Be aware that the IPCC wasn't in agreement what the most likely amount of temperature growth would be when they published the 5th IPCC report in 2013. (that's why they didn't publish it.) The climate models developed in the 90's were off by a large margin in the 1990-2010 period. So how reliable are their projections?
NASA, ESA and the IPCC don't state how climate should fluctuate under normal circumstances (Solar- and Milankovitch cycles). To determine what effect humans have on the climate the climate development has to be compared to the fluctuation under normal situation. This is terribly difficult.
It could very well be that our actions to move away from fossil fuels worsen the situation. (Albedo effect of our influence on vegetation and solar panels?)

I think hydrocarbons are and will remain the best solution aviation and shipping for a long time. It's very difficult to make a energy system as mass and volume dense as combustion engines. I really hope humanity will develop the technology to move toward short cycle hydrocarbons, or a chemical-electrical conversion system that as dense as combustion engines.
But until that technology is developed, fossil fuel based kerosine is the best solution for aviation. This is something for the 2050's.
Can someone knowledgeable about combustion proces in turbines confirm or deny the beneficial effect the elimination of sulfar in kerosine could have on combustion efficiency and NOx emissions. (SOx emisions are eliminated when S(ulfar) is removed from the kerosine).
 
parapente
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:25 am

Thx Erigeron but believe me I am no professional!Used to fly a/c but that's about it!
The plain fact is that Airbus suggested a stretched A321NEO about 15 years ago but there were no takers.But if they could then they certainly could now!
They don't even 'have' to start with a new wing (however desirable).They could stretch and trade range for pax.ie a 250 seater may well be able to do a 3-4 hour leg which covers one hell of a lot of routes.This may (may) be the 'simple' plus.
It's worth noting (I think) that if present sales patterns persist the A320 has in fact become the 'shrink' with the A321NEO being the central model.As such a stretch (322) is the obvious next step.
But they won't do it yet.Why? Because there is zero point offering something to customers that you can't possibly deliver for -what 5 plus years due to the ever increasing backlog.But in a year or two when all production and assembly lines are humming properly.Then you might.Perhaps Paris 2019.Thats the date when all the present developments inc LR are in manufacturi and (hopefully) all the P&W issues are ironed out inc the new power/SFC PIP.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:54 am

prebennorholm wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Not quite. Was thinking a regular elliptical/oval shaped fuselage, more like the A380's I suppose. In the "upright" position it would be 3-3 (single deck seating with taller cargo area) and then when rotated, it would be 2-3-2 (cargo area would be about the same height as the A320's, but wider).

The A380 is certainly no elliptical or oval fuselage. It is a triple bubble, where the two floors are the stuctures which keep the bubbles circular when pressurized. Three bubbles with three different radii.


So hang on... Slug71 really thought you could take a single fuselage and use it unmodified at 0 degrees and 90 degrees?!?

So we're talking absolutely no structural loading of the floor due to pressurisation, therefore extra thickening at the pointy sides to handle out-of-plane pressurisation loads plus even more thickening on the flat sides to handle the greater beam loading when used at 90 degrees... That would be one hell of a heavy fuselage!
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:10 pm

I think that Airbus will remain offering a A319 or A320- (when they develop a A320+), because it has better boarding time that the CS300. For the same reason, I think Airbus (Commercial Aircraft) will allow the development a CS500 and remains offering the A320.
With both the A32x series and the CSeries Airbus could achieve >60% market share, without the CSeries this can't be achieved.
Someone proposed Airbus and BBD should increase their narrowbody production rate to 100/month. The A32x is going to 60-63 by 2019, and CS in now at 2 and will go to 10-20 (120-240/year). Combined this is <83.
Boeing is ramping to 57. I would like to know: how Airbus and BBD could industrialize this. Is Airbus going to keep producing all the mayor sub-assemblies of the (A32x) planes in Europe and transporting them to the FALs, or do you think that they will spread sub-assembly production so they can eliminate a lot of transportation trouble?

I don't think a rate 100 is realistic. Airbus market forecast for 2017-2036 predicts ~24800 narrowbody aircraft. (That's a global rate of 103/month, with slower production in the first decade, this could require a rate of 150/month at the 2030's). Airbus described what they define as narrowbody; 100seat+ in their spreadsheet.
Bombardier predicts 12550 deliveries in the 60-150seat market, in their 2017-2036 forcast. Bombardier predicts 6800 of those are small single aisle (100-150 seats). A global production rate of 28.33/month for 100-150 small single aisle, or if late delivery is considered 35/month by 2030.
If I assume Airbus forecast is correct, the total global production demand by 2030 could be 150/month. This is shared by A32x, 737, CS, C919, MC-21, E-Jet, and SSJ. 60% of this is 90/month. The 100-150seat single aisle is only less than a forth of the single aisle market is Airbus and BBD are correct.
ATR predicted a demand of 2800 regional turboprops between 2016-2035, 600x 40-60seats and 2200x 61-80seats. That's a average of 140/year |11 2/3/month for ATR & Q400. A 100+seat regional prop steels market share from the narrow-bodies and the smaler regional-props.

I also want to point to a image on page 34 of Airbus 2017-2036 global market forecast book.
The WB below 2000NM and SA above 2000NM are both small markets in 2016. WB <2000NM ~2x SA >2000NM.
But possibly the A321LR changes this.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:52 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Not quite. Was thinking a regular elliptical/oval shaped fuselage, more like the A380's I suppose. In the "upright" position it would be 3-3 (single deck seating with taller cargo area) and then when rotated, it would be 2-3-2 (cargo area would be about the same height as the A320's, but wider).

The A380 is certainly no elliptical or oval fuselage. It is a triple bubble, where the two floors are the stuctures which keep the bubbles circular when pressurized. Three bubbles with three different radii.


So hang on... Slug71 really thought you could take a single fuselage and use it unmodified at 0 degrees and 90 degrees?!?

So we're talking absolutely no structural loading of the floor due to pressurisation, therefore extra thickening at the pointy sides to handle out-of-plane pressurisation loads plus even more thickening on the flat sides to handle the greater beam loading when used at 90 degrees... That would be one hell of a heavy fuselage!

:idea:
The decks of the A380 are experiencing a tensile load to maintain the triple bubble (higher than width ellipsoid) fuselage. A wider than hight elibsoid has a compresive deck loading to maintain the fuselage shape. For tensile loading the geometry of the floor beams doesn't mather, so they can be developed for the floor loading high (high moment of inertia vertically [I-beams]) .
For compression load the floor beam requires a high moment of inertia in both directions, this requires tubes profile floor-beams. So totally different loadcases and thus geometry results. AFAIK, light weight design consider, material, load (path and cycle) and component geometry. :twocents:
 
IPFreely
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:54 pm

Dutchy wrote:
You can argue all you want that not everything has been worked out and therefore it isn't worth the money for the paper which it got ridden on, but in the end, I made a prediction on the future and you don't subscribe to that, fine we will see, neither you nor me are in the driving seat for this, we are mere observers. You will not convince me from your prediction and I will not convince you, fine then let's agree to watch what will happen and perhaps have a little wager on this: put your money where your mouth is: a nice full bottle of whisky, good for you? And to formulate it smart: in 2030 there will be an enforceable system to reduce global emissions in aviation. Good for you?


Not everything has been worked out? I think you mean nothing has been worked out and there are no real plans to work anything out.

Environmental regulations for aviation are not that different from environmental regulations for coal fired power plants, gasoline automobiles, or diesel engines. The US EPA and the EU each have continually tightened regulations that are enforced in the US and in the EU. Much of the rest of the world has regulations that are decades behind the US and Europe, or no regulations at all. This includes some of the most populated countries on Earth like China and India as well as Russia, Brazil, and others. If any organization decided to create global requirements for aviation and China, India, Russia, Brazil, or any other countries decide not to comply, there is nothing anyone can do about it -- despite your fantasies of a globally enforceable system, which you evidently now think will happen in 2030 instead of 2020.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:58 pm

IPFreely wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
You can argue all you want that not everything has been worked out and therefore it isn't worth the money for the paper which it got ridden on, but in the end, I made a prediction on the future and you don't subscribe to that, fine we will see, neither you nor me are in the driving seat for this, we are mere observers. You will not convince me from your prediction and I will not convince you, fine then let's agree to watch what will happen and perhaps have a little wager on this: put your money where your mouth is: a nice full bottle of whisky, good for you? And to formulate it smart: in 2030 there will be an enforceable system to reduce global emissions in aviation. Good for you?


Not everything has been worked out? I think you mean nothing has been worked out and there are no real plans to work anything out.

Environmental regulations for aviation are not that different from environmental regulations for coal fired power plants, gasoline automobiles, or diesel engines. The US EPA and the EU each have continually tightened regulations that are enforced in the US and in the EU. Much of the rest of the world has regulations that are decades behind the US and Europe, or no regulations at all. This includes some of the most populated countries on Earth like China and India as well as Russia, Brazil, and others. If any organization decided to create global requirements for aviation and China, India, Russia, Brazil, or any other countries decide not to comply, there is nothing anyone can do about it -- despite your fantasies of a globally enforceable system, which you evidently now think will happen in 2030 instead of 2020.


I thought your premise was that no regulations are going to be in place because it is not enforceable and now you say it is enforceable, good for you. But do we have a bet?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
IPFreely
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:35 pm

Dutchy wrote:
I thought your premise was that no regulations are going to be in place because it is not enforceable and now you say it is enforceable, good for you. But do we have a bet?


Read again, I clearly state that nothing is enforceable globally. Individual countries can regulate and enforce at their will as some do with gasoline and diesel emissions. But they cannot enforce their regulations on other countries. I don’t know why you think global enforcement will ever be possible. Maybe you believe the UN will issue orders and the whole world will listen and comply which is complete fantasy.

As far as a bet, sure, we all know you won’t pay 12 years from now but whatever you want.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:35 pm

IPFreely wrote:
Not everything has been worked out? I think you mean nothing has been worked out and there are no real plans to work anything out.


Oh enough already!

Can't you just concede that there is a general global movement, both in politics and industry, which is moving towards some form of agreement which will require tighter regulations.

In this case of course the OEMs are going to be shaping and modifying their future plans to eventually match whatever the final outcome is. They would be utterly stupid to just plough on regardless and then get caught with a portfolio of aircraft, none of which passes regulation!

I mean DUH!

The point is that the OEMs are one of the stakeholders involved in the current and ongoing process of shaping those future regulations!
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:47 pm

IPFreely wrote:
Environmental regulations for aviation are not that different from environmental regulations for coal fired power plants, gasoline automobiles, or diesel engines.


Yes they bloody are! You will not be able to fly from country A to country B on an aircraft where country B refuses landing rights. Ergo, OEMs will have to be able to match the strictest regulations and airlines will have to gradually upgrade their fleets to match the rules where they fly to. So even if say the US allows domestic flights to run on pure charcoal and coal dust, any US airline wanting to fly to somewhere with very tight regulations will have to buy at least a handful of aircraft that fly on diluted pixie-farts. That means the OEMs have to make pixie-fart equipped aircraft available ... and that in turn will lead to more airlines buying pixie-fart aircraft and more countries mandating pixie-fart regulations, etc. etc. until the global fleet is pixie-fart equipped.

That makes for a lot of tired and bloated pixies, but hey - that's progress.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:03 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
Environmental regulations for aviation are not that different from environmental regulations for coal fired power plants, gasoline automobiles, or diesel engines.


Yes they bloody are! You will not be able to fly from country A to country B on an aircraft where country B refuses landing rights. Ergo, OEMs will have to be able to match the strictest regulations and airlines will have to gradually upgrade their fleets to match the rules where they fly to. So even if say the US allows domestic flights to run on pure charcoal and coal dust, any US airline wanting to fly to somewhere with very tight regulations will have to buy at least a handful of aircraft that fly on diluted pixie-farts. That means the OEMs have to make pixie-fart equipped aircraft available ... and that in turn will lead to more airlines buying pixie-fart aircraft and more countries mandating pixie-fart regulations, etc. etc. until the global fleet is pixie-fart equipped.

That makes for a lot of tired and bloated pixies, but hey - that's progress.



It is just like car regulations in California, they were a lot stricter (don't know if this is still the case) then they were on a federal level, car companies didn't want to make a separate version for the California market so defacto the Californian regulation was the norm in the US, not the federal regulation. The same will happen in aviation. When the EU and/or China will really impose CO2 pricing or outright ban certain types for not being clean enough (as they have done with noise), the industry must follow, regardless if it is globally enforceable or not. It's a technical detail which has nothing to do with the real world.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:08 pm

IPFreely wrote:
As far as a bet, sure, we all know you won’t pay 12 years from now but whatever you want.


I guess you are a person which would not pay up, but I can be trusted though............
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:40 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Not quite. Was thinking a regular elliptical/oval shaped fuselage, more like the A380's I suppose. In the "upright" position it would be 3-3 (single deck seating with taller cargo area) and then when rotated, it would be 2-3-2 (cargo area would be about the same height as the A320's, but wider).

The A380 is certainly no elliptical or oval fuselage. It is a triple bubble, where the two floors are the stuctures which keep the bubbles circular when pressurized. Three bubbles with three different radii.


So hang on... Slug71 really thought you could take a single fuselage and use it unmodified at 0 degrees and 90 degrees?!?

So we're talking absolutely no structural loading of the floor due to pressurisation, therefore extra thickening at the pointy sides to handle out-of-plane pressurisation loads plus even more thickening on the flat sides to handle the greater beam loading when used at 90 degrees... That would be one hell of a heavy fuselage!


Whoa...I never said use it unmodified. In fact, i said "not sure if it would work". I was purely just talking about the shape of the fuselage as far as the outer walls go. Of course the strengthening and structural loading of the floor would be unique to its orientation.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 11084
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:13 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Between this A(TR)200 and the ATR72 I think there is stil a market for a ATR92. (4-abreast 40-100 seat prop range, also for military purposes, Airbus CASA [Spain] builds the A400, CN235 and C295, Leonardo the C27J, and ATR the 42 & 72).


I think at some point it was communicated a ATR Stretch / NEO was seen as a better option than something entirely new. I think the ATR has some improvement potential left.

Image

It seems PW is working on a suitable engine that could facilitate additional speed, capacity and payload-range.
https://www.airinsight.com/pratt-whitney-canada-next-generation-regional-turboprop-engine/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
IPFreely
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:56 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Oh enough already!

Can't you just concede that there is a general global movement, both in politics and industry, which is moving towards some form of agreement which will require tighter regulations.

In this case of course the OEMs are going to be shaping and modifying their future plans to eventually match whatever the final outcome is. They would be utterly stupid to just plough on regardless and then get caught with a portfolio of aircraft, none of which passes regulation!

I mean DUH!

The point is that the OEMs are one of the stakeholders involved in the current and ongoing process of shaping those future regulations!


Is there some global movement that wants tighter environmental regulations? Sure. From that it does not follow that anything will ever happen. I would ask you the same questions I asked Dutchy about who, when, and how these regulations will be created, agreed to, monitored, and enforced. But like him, I'm sure you have no answers (then again, Dutchy was worried about the Paris agreement, apparently unaware that aviation was excluded). Calling these details that will magically be worked out is delusional. There is no organization with any authority to create mandatory regulations and enforce them on every nation. You can continue to believe otherwise forever.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:11 am

Slug71 wrote:
Whoa...I never said use it unmodified. In fact, i said "not sure if it would work". I was purely just talking about the shape of the fuselage as far as the outer walls go. Of course the strengthening and structural loading of the floor would be unique to its orientation.


Well presumably the only reason to use a common shape would be to have common parts. Just keeping the shape the same will not give you any benefits.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:21 am

IPFreely wrote:
I would ask you the same questions I asked Dutchy about who, when, and how these regulations will be created, agreed to, monitored, and enforced. But like him, I'm sure you have no answers [...]
There is no organization with any authority to create mandatory regulations and enforce them on every nation. You can continue to believe otherwise forever.


Fine, just completely ignore my rant where I described in length exactly how these regulations will be created and adopted.

Also blindly ignore how every global treaty in the world is ever passed .

You obviously think there was some global police force which imposed nuclear test bans, agreements on use of Antarctica and space (not that all countries actually keep to these, but hey), trade rules etc.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
IPFreely
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:39 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Fine, just completely ignore my rant where I described in length exactly how these regulations will be created and adopted.

Also blindly ignore how every global treaty in the world is ever passed .

You obviously think there was some global police force which imposed nuclear test bans, agreements on use of Antarctica and space (not that all countries actually keep to these, but hey), trade rules etc.


Your "explanation" is wrong.
Using nuclear test bans as an example of a how global treaties are successful -- when North Korea violates these bans every few weeks -- shows that you are not to be taken seriously.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2734
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:28 am

IPFreely wrote:
Is there some global movement that wants tighter environmental regulations? Sure. From that it does not follow that anything will ever happen. I would ask you the same questions I asked Dutchy about who, when, and how these regulations will be created, agreed to, monitored, and enforced. But like him, I'm sure you have no answers (then again, Dutchy was worried about the Paris agreement, apparently unaware that aviation was excluded). Calling these details that will magically be worked out is delusional. There is no organization with any authority to create mandatory regulations and enforce them on every nation. You can continue to believe otherwise forever.

You keep repeating the Paris Agreement excluded commercial aviation and shipping emissions. It did. But the exclusion was on the basis ICAO and IMO promulgate a timetable, including self-determined targets, processes and penalties.

Just as with noise pollution, there is no aviation super power able to impose global, standardised rules.

Like noise, implementation will occur on a country by country basis, although increasingly, countries work together. For example, the EU, UK and USA made Chapter 4 / Stage 5 mandatory from 31 December 2017 and 2020 (perhaps why a significant number of older aircraft were withdrawn in 2017), depending on aircraft weight. If airlines don't want to operate to those countries, then don't. If you want to maintain a small compliant sub-fleet, the airlines choice. Or the country is large enough for internal flights. Or if they can be re-purposed for military use.

Within those noise rules, individual countries and airports can set their own charging regimes. For example, a scale of charges for aircraft that barely meet the rules, versus meet by say 5dB-10dB or meet by over 10dB (invented numbers). This can be consistent throughout the day, or greater during the night, or when the airport is busiest, or..............

The difference with noise regulations, especially in the 2 and 3 era, was aircraft manufacturers and airlines were very reluctant followers, because the financial penalties and PR impacts were small. The penalties (no rewards) are still relatively small, though they have outpaced inflation.

For example, the UK uses three bands each for Chapter 3 and 4 (6 in total). Some airports impose no charges. Some only impose charges for 1-2 of the bands. Others, like in London, charge for all six. Not all London airports are consistent. The most expensive to be noisy at is Heathrow, although the financial penalties are small relative to other flight and airport costs.

Even though the penalties are small, where airlines have a choice, guess which airport gets the quieter (cheaper) aircraft?

Increasingly, if an engine type is influential in determining the band, and is just below a more favourable band, you can be sure IAG and the like are pressing the OEM for a PiP, not only for fuel economy, but also a noise improvement, to jump bands. Ask RR for more information on that customer and subject.

The difference between noise and emissions, whether it's motivated by environmental and/social responsibility, favourable PR, cost minimisation, profit maximisation, marketing............. or all of the above, is that proactive airlines and airports seem to be embracing the idea of rewarding and penalising carbon emissions. In fact, I can see airlines, becoming earlier adopters than countries.

The financial margin for being the best versus the worst emitter could in time become quite a significant cost as a percentage of total costs. Not necessarily from day one. And airports could magnify the best and worst margins, if the emissions component of their total charges increases (versus landing/departing, navigation, passenger, parking and other charges).

I'm not going to add any further comment to this thread, as I'm guilty of diverting it from the OP's intent.
 
grbauc
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:43 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
"hunter and gather type of organized society " :lol:

I believe we, as mankind, have no other option than to kick off our fossil fuel addiction. I also believe technical solutions will ensure, in the end, that we will not go backward, but forwards, like we have always done. Given this paradigm, Airbus needs to react to it, or be gone (same goes for Boeing and in that sense it is interesting that they are investing in a start-up for an electric aircraft).

Even if you do not believe in human-induced climate change:

Image

https://www.thoughtco.com/cartoons-and- ... ge-2734107


I think that humans started distorting climate when we transitioned from hunters, gatherers & fishers to farmers. From that point onward humans have changed plant growth.
Dutchy, you show the dutch flag, so let's consider the Netherlands. >50% is below sealevel, and that's by our own doing. We build dams and dikes and lowered water levels, but this stopped sementation (plants dying on flooded lands) and allowed the vegetation in peat-lands to rott, causing the land to subside. I also want to point out that drilling records from the north sea show that during earth's history the North Sea was dry most of the time (during Ice ages). Only in the intermediate warm periods the northsea exists and is flooded. The sealevel of the northsea has been 8m higher than today but also 120m lower. The climate fluctuates in 40k-100k year cycles, but only from the 18 hundreds humans are measuring the climate.
The climate models can't predict El-Ninos and El-Ninas, major climate determining effects.
The invention of the steam engine in the 18th century (combustion engines) enabled humanity to end slavery.

Let's restate what I wrote in my first reply in this topic. I think humans are to stupid to understand the earth climate system. Be aware that the IPCC wasn't in agreement what the most likely amount of temperature growth would be when they published the 5th IPCC report in 2013. (that's why they didn't publish it.) The climate models developed in the 90's were off by a large margin in the 1990-2010 period. So how reliable are their projections?
NASA, ESA and the IPCC don't state how climate should fluctuate under normal circumstances (Solar- and Milankovitch cycles). To determine what effect humans have on the climate the climate development has to be compared to the fluctuation under normal situation. This is terribly difficult.
It could very well be that our actions to move away from fossil fuels worsen the situation. (Albedo effect of our influence on vegetation and solar panels?)

I think hydrocarbons are and will remain the best solution aviation and shipping for a long time. It's very difficult to make a energy system as mass and volume dense as combustion engines. I really hope humanity will develop the technology to move toward short cycle hydrocarbons, or a chemical-electrical conversion system that as dense as combustion engines.
But until that technology is developed, fossil fuel based kerosine is the best solution for aviation. This is something for the 2050's.
Can someone knowledgeable about combustion proces in turbines confirm or deny the beneficial effect the elimination of sulfar in kerosine could have on combustion efficiency and NOx emissions. (SOx emisions are eliminated when S(ulfar) is removed from the kerosine).



Thank you for this well articulated post I believe you are spot on.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:03 pm

IPFreely wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Fine, just completely ignore my rant where I described in length exactly how these regulations will be created and adopted.

Also blindly ignore how every global treaty in the world is ever passed .

You obviously think there was some global police force which imposed nuclear test bans, agreements on use of Antarctica and space (not that all countries actually keep to these, but hey), trade rules etc.


Your "explanation" is wrong.
Using nuclear test bans as an example of a how global treaties are successful -- when North Korea violates these bans every few weeks -- shows that you are not to be taken seriously.


I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but seriously? Your argument "against" the fact that international treaties are drawn up co-cooperatively and self-enforced is that an existing treaty drawn up exactly in this way has subsequently been breached by just one of its 183 parties (one which never actually signed and ratified)?

Either logic is not your strong point or you're doing this deliberately...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:45 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Lot's of assumptions, some are incorrect and mostly are totally beside what is happening in the world, outside of the aviation world. And you haven't taken into account Corsia, explained brilliantly by Planesmart, he is an insider, I am not, so far better to listen to him and please pay attention to the word mandatory. ;-)


Corsia is voluntary until 2027. At that point it supposedly becomes mandatory but with no person or organization having any authority to monitor or enforce anything, calling it mandatory is a joke. You can continue to live in your own world and wonder why Airbus is not taking "big steps" as you think they need to be doing.


The way I read it is that aircraft and shipping have been left out of the agreement because they are problematic at the moment. However to say that it is unenforceable whilst technically true is all but nonsense in the real world. Technically the safety standards of aircraft are nonenforceable as the UK cannot tell an airline in the UAE how to maintain or certify their aircraft and if the UAE want to allow rust buckets around their countries then so be it but there is a way to enforce it through regulatory reciprocity and we see this with certain countries black listing airlines from specific countries from operating flights there.

I don't see how this corsia thing is any different, the US can fly whatever they want internally but if the french say it has to meet regulations X, Y and Z to land here then it either follows the regs or doesn't land.

Fred

Did Europe try that with China regarding a special landing fee? How did that work out?
Last edited by william on Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Egerton
Posts: 840
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:46 pm

Upthread I suggested to JustSomeDood that "Airbus will need two more assembly plants, one for his Plan A (the enhanced A321s), and one for the C Series so they will then be up to Rate 100." The reason for the assembly plant in the USA for the C Series has been well discussed. The need for further (2nd new) assembly plant is that the enhanced A321s are going to be different from the existing, with longer fuselages, longer undercarriages for bigger fanned engines and to allow greater rotation angle to avoid tail strikes, and bigger longer wings.

Upthread, CFRPwingALbody has suggested that the existing rate for the A32x is going to 60-63 by 2019 (my thought was 64), and CS is now at 2 and will go to 10-20 (120-240/year) (I do not disagree assuming some of the Rate 20 CS are to be built in a new assembly plant at Mobile or wherever in the US). Combined this is <83. (84)

It seems to me that the enhanced A321 will be the precursor to an eventual low risk phased renewal of the whole then existing A32x product line, by which I mean the existing A320 and A321. If this is the case, a new separate line for the enhanced A321 will enable some development activity and production optimisation to be carried out without messing up the existing lines.

This second new line will best be at TLS, thus a new line may be needed at another new assembly plant location elsewhere as TLS is already over-full of activity and employment. It seems to be the case that Airbus has decided that each new location should aim initially for Rate 4, with potential for Rate 8. In the US, they may be thinking of an eventual Rate 16, to include the new suggested CS line wherever in the US it is decided to locate this. Rate 63 + Rate 20 CS + Rate 4 enhanced A321 at TLS + new line at new location Rate 4 = Rate 91 for all the Airbus narrow bodies. When the last two lines are each up to Rate 8, this would mean Rate 99 total for all Airbus narrow bodies.

On the forecasts of deliveries, forecasting is a just branch of archaeology, creating plausible guesses based on things past. As far as Airbus narrow bodies are concerned, the demand far exceeds supply, so production must increase or a barn door will be left wide open for new start-ups. If the world economy and world GDP drops off a cliff, then the supplier with inferior products will suffer more that the firm with superior products. If things get really dire, then 3 or 4 day weeks will be an escape route, not wholesale redundancy, until normal wastage and early retirement kick in.

The key thing is not the assembly line Rates, it is the off site production of the components. This is where low risk phased renewal comes into play, as compared with the big bang theory of totally new product introduction.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:33 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but seriously? Your argument "against" the fact that international treaties are drawn up co-cooperatively and self-enforced is that an existing treaty drawn up exactly in this way has subsequently been breached by just one of its 183 parties (one which never actually signed and ratified)?

Either logic is not your strong point or you're doing this deliberately...


So your idea of a global treaty is one which only applies to the countries that voluntarily sign it? You need to learn what “global” means.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:57 pm

IPFreely wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but seriously? Your argument "against" the fact that international treaties are drawn up co-cooperatively and self-enforced is that an existing treaty drawn up exactly in this way has subsequently been breached by just one of its 183 parties (one which never actually signed and ratified)?

Either logic is not your strong point or you're doing this deliberately...


So your idea of a global treaty is one which only applies to the countries that voluntarily sign it? You need to learn what “global” means.

Well then there can be no global treaties or agreements and we should just assume that shipping containers fit together on boats because of luck and that an ILS works on an AA jet landing in LHR is because of voodoo and that computer networking protocols so we can actually talk over the internet are made up and I'm not really typing this because nothing happens across made up borders of countries anyway. What does the inside of shell look like?

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:21 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but seriously? Your argument "against" the fact that international treaties are drawn up co-cooperatively and self-enforced is that an existing treaty drawn up exactly in this way has subsequently been breached by just one of its 183 parties (one which never actually signed and ratified)?

Either logic is not your strong point or you're doing this deliberately...


So your idea of a global treaty is one which only applies to the countries that voluntarily sign it? You need to learn what “global” means.

Well then there can be no global treaties or agreements and we should just assume that shipping containers fit together on boats because of luck and that an ILS works on an AA jet landing in LHR is because of voodoo and that computer networking protocols so we can actually talk over the internet are made up and I'm not really typing this because nothing happens across made up borders of countries anyway. What does the inside of shell look like?


No no no, apparently there is some global police force or secret elite conspiracy (I've read of these but won't name them in case it gets taken seriously) which unilaterally imposes its will on all nations and it has always been this way - despite the fact that not one single international treaty has ever come into existence like that. We are all wrong and he is right and "la la la I'm not listening to you..." etc. Honestly I've rarely read such out-of-touch views of how the world works!

And that really is my last word on this since I suspect we may be victims of a classic troll (it reminds me of Internet in the early nineties...)
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:07 pm

The next step for Airbus is the obvious, to get production up to par, and start working down their huge backlog. The second step seems to me, (and I would defer to those with better knowledge) is a 350 version of the 787-10. It would, in A-Net speak, be long legged enough for 80-90% of the routes, and would hold a hell of a lot of people. The 777 8 and 9 cover important niches, but those niches may not be big enough to be worth competing for.

Regarding Paris treaty and airline carbon emissions. I have wondered if as well as improving efficiency there might be alternate ways for the airline industry to do their part: Economists really like a carbon tax. It would reduce emissions, it is simple to enforce, it reduces the need for complex regulations. And magically it implies that the $billions the airline industry would spend might be better spent just paying the carbon tax, and that money go for higher efficiencies in other industry, commercial, and residential uses. An example of this was Musk's suggestion that Volkswagon's fine be commuted to their spending the same money building out the electric car infrastructure. (charging stations etc., IIRC).
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: AIRBUS 2020-2030 development projects A360, A370 opportunities.

Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:32 pm

@Egerton
The A32x rate 60-63 already requires both Tianjin and Mobile at rate 8. (possibly we'll get some news about Tianjin FAL next week)
AFAIK airbus has five nearly identical A320 FALs, Hamburg FAL3; Mobile, Tianjin & Toulouse 1&2.
Hamburg FAL4 uses the same proces steps, but has a different layout.
Hamburg FAL1&2 use a different assembly proces if I'm not mistaken.

Image
Origional A320 FAL layout. (Toulouse FAL)
Image
Common A320 FAL proces
Image
Airbus Hamburg A320 FAL4

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos