CFRPwingALbody wrote:I expect Boeing will use a version of the GEnx for their MOM, possibly the engine could be developed form the GEnx-2B67B used for the B748.
- I expect a MOM will use a 90-106" fan (2,25-2,7m), with 40k-64k lbf engines (180-285kN).
2 years ago I would have said it would definitely be a Pratt GTF. They have tested a slightly higher ratio gearbox already. This would allow a larger 90" fan added to the current PW1100G core. The core generates a set shaft horsepower to spin the front fan. By spinning a larger fan slower allows you to produce more thrust from the same shaft horsepower. Bypass ratio would be around 15:1. With a 150T maximum takeoff weight and a nice modern wing they would only need 25% extra thrust from the PW1100G.
CFRPwingALbody wrote:Airbus has two options:
1) A longer A322 and/or a larger wing on the A32xNEO (A325/A326)
2) A smaller wing for the A33xNEO (A335/A336).
I too think the A335/A336 is the way to go. Making the A330 smaller while improving medium haul efficiency would add some space between the A350. Currently the A339 offers 90% of the capability of the A359.
The A338 is clearly overwinged for the cabin size. The A310's much lighter wing box and landing gear design would still be sitting at Airbus somewhere. It would bolt right up to the current A330 fuselage. The current A330 fuselage could be shortened to whatever length required. So half of the R&D is already done. You just need a wing. The A310's wing would also be very close to the correct size, add some big raked winglets and job done. With modern fuel efficient engines you wouldn't need the same amount of fuel (weight) to fly the same medium haul flights. So the wing may appear small but it would work well.
Engines play a big part it turned the A339 into a ULH machine. An A310 with new engines would allow for fuel to be reduced and the weight put towards a stretch while keeping the range the same. All while keeping the same small wing.
Fuselage length would be left up to airbus, but I assume it would be no shorter than the A310 (46m) and no longer than the A338 (58m) probably around the length of the A300 (54m). The short model would fly further. How big they could go would depend on how much thrust the Boeing MOM engines produce.
Airbus has the quickest response for a widebody MOM.
CFRPwingALbody wrote:Lets also drop my A330-10 brain-fart here.
Could a A330NEO MTOW 249mT with the A345 frame length (A339 stretched by 4.3m, to ~68m) be a nice addition to Airbus line up. It's ment as regional plane with 440 seats, or ~6000NM with 300 seats. (I know it will compete with the A359.) list price a little over $300mln?
The 787-10 is selling well and it is the similar capacity as the smallest 777. It works for Boeing but wouldn't for Airbus. The 787-10 is selling because its carbon, 5% more cabin area yet weighs 5% less empty than the 772.
The A330-10 would have the same cabin area and weigh the same. Hard to find exact numbers but the A330NEO will be at least 5T heavier than the A330CEO. Even best case numbers it would be same cabin area and at most 5% lighter. So half of the advantage that the 787-10 has over the 772.
When an aircraft has 'double' the improvement a benchmark usually the sales aren't double but become a 10 fold.
So if the 787-10 sells 500 aircraft a A330-10 may sell only 50.