Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:30 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Interview with Guillaume Faury saying that Airbus is thinking of introducing an new NB in the second halve of next decade with an EIS in early 2030's. He is suggesting that technology advancement maturity is a prerequisite though.

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-new-narrowbody-2030/



So what is on everyone's shopping list for this?


10 year certification program?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9767
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:41 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

In what way differs the A330 fuselage?

If you take a cut across it, they are identical. Lengthwise you have the same distance between frames and same height of the frames.. Same windows. The difference is not in design, but that single parts are beefed up, for the greater stress on the A330. Bigger wing box on the A330.

I would say, that there is a bigger difference between a 777 and a 777X fuselage and also between a 737 classic and NG fuselage, than between the A330 and A300 fuselage.

I would see no problem to produce a hypothetical new A330/310 fuselage on the current A330 lines.


It differs by all those parts beefed up for the A330. I really do not see why the engineers at Airbus would save any time by starting with the old design, instead of simply doing a new fuselage with the same diameter (or a double lobe like the A350). Then you can use all new materials and construction methods that have become available in the last 3 decades.


I tried to tell you, that the difference between an A330 fuselage and A330 fuselage that you claim to be, is just not there. The A330 is a stretched A300 fuselage with the needed changes for a big increase in MTOW. There are different parts between a A330-300 and an A330-200 fuselage in certain places. They would add the third.
There is more difference between a 777 and 777X fuselage, still produced on the same line.
What new materials if you build an Aluminium fuselage? Aluminium Lithium does not seem to be the big advantage it was claimed to be, the big disadvantage to Aluminium Lithium alloy is, that it is rather brittle, even though it has a higher strength. I assume fatigue testing showed that you still need a similar weight as in aluminium 7075 in regards to skins.
Going for CFRP fuselage would negate any advantage of building something similar as the A330 on A330 production line, you would need a new dedicated production.

The main point to looking at the old A300/310 fuselage is, that it was a rather light fuselage compared to its size. Both the A300 and the A310 are lighter than the 767-300 and 767-200 respectively. At that time when Airbus developed the A330, customers just wanted to have bigger frames.
I still do not believe in the big NMA market, the A310 and 767-200 had similar low sales numbers. But I believe that the design of the A300 fuselage, is the optimal design for a small wide body, in regards to weight to possible load of freight and passengers. The draw back of the A300 in regards to range would disappear today, more range would come through modern engines, rather than added weight.


All correct, but I still not agree that they need to go back to the A300 fuselage to achieve this. There is no reason a fully new designed fuselage with the same diameter won´t achieve the same and more and will hardly cost more in the development process. Airbus should not go to the band aid design process Boeing used for the MAX.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:10 pm

morrisond wrote:
10 year certification program?


You might have intended that sarcastically - but your not completely wrong.

If, say, they do end up with Carbon NanoFibre (CNF) infused resins for composites - how do they (EASA & Airbus) ensure consistent distribution of CNF within the resin? That needs tests and processes to be established.

Or, if they go for Out Of Autoclave (OOA) - then there will need to be other tests for voids - probably similar to now. But if you bond parts post initial curing (say, skin & stringers) - that also needs a framework for examination and regulation.

There can be a lot of groundwork that needs to be done before a part is first drawn in CATIA.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:03 pm

I think Airbus, in the coming decade, will build several new variants of existing aircraft families. The only clean-sheet aircraft I can envision is an small, light, and very short-ranged aircraft.

This is all about the Paris agreement, making the industry sustainable. We need to combat climate change by utilizing renewable energy sources. The Airbus CEO has talked about this many times.

I think the next clean-sheet will have fans powered by batteries. First generation might have less than 50 passenger seats and one pilot (plus an AI autopilot). Later comes a stretch of this base variant. Maybe Airbus will develop this aircraft together with its ATR partner, Leonardo.

The development of the technology for electric aircraft is well underway, with Siemens and other companies developing the engines. The EU clean sky programme is also a key funding source. I think there will be a huge increase in environmental taxes during the coming decade, and this income will be used to provide extensive subsidies to the development for zero-emissions aircraft. Think about this in relation to the current and serious debate about a possible ban on domestic flights in Germany and other countries. The US needs to come out of the Trump era and start innovating in green technology.

The Norwegian government, which owns and operates (almost) all airports in Norway, has started a project detailing aircraft charging infrastructure at BGO and SVG, with the aim that these two cities will be among the first in the world to see large scale application of battery powered aircraft in commercial operations. We are talking details, including which gates should have charging infrastructure etc. Rapid charging of one aircraft requires more power than the entire airport combined, These two airports have daily around 18 to 20 departures in each direction, mostly 737-800, but also quite a few CRJ-1000. The distance between these airports is about 80 nm, or 20 minutes flight time. In other words ideal for early adoption of electric aircraft.

Why Norway? We are talking about a country where government subsidies is available and the common way of doing things. It is a country where already more than 50% of new cars are electric. Due to huge subsidies, Tesla is the most sold car. From 2025, new cars that uses fossil fuels can't be sold. This is a country where battery powered ro-ro car ferries is the norm. All along the coastline these ferries, with hundreds of cars onboard, cross the fjords and automatically starts changing while at port. Hydroelectric power is in abundance. All ferries have been developed and built with huge subsidies.

There has been many meetings between the Royal Ministry of Transportation and Airbus. Who knows what they talking about.

The next clean-sheet will not be an A330 replacement or an NMA. It will be a small, light weight, very short-ranged, fully electric aircraft. After that we might see an A320 replacement around year 2035. Interesting times ahead,
Last edited by reidar76 on Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:08 pm

Double post. Please delete.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:29 pm

reidar76 wrote:
I think Airbus, in the coming decade, will build several new variants of existing aircraft families. The only clean-sheet aircraft I can envision is an small, light, and very short-ranged aircraft.

This is all about the Paris agreement, making the industry sustainable. We need to combat climate change by utilizing renewable energy sources. The Airbus CEO has talked about this many times.

I think the next clean-sheet will have fans powered by batteries. First generation might have less than 50 passenger seats and one pilot (plus an AI autopilot). Later comes a stretch of this base variant. Maybe Airbus will develop this aircraft together with its ATR partner, Leonardo.

The development of the technology for electric aircraft is well underway, with Siemens and other companies developing the engines. The EU clean sky programme is also a key funding source. I think there will be a huge increase in environmental taxes during the coming decade, and this income will be used to provide extensive subsidies to the development for zero-emissions aircraft. Think about this in relation to the current and serious debate about a possible ban on domestic flights in Germany and other countries. The US needs to come out of the Trump era and start innovating in green technology.

The Norwegian government, which owns and operates (almost) all airports in Norway, has started a project detailing aircraft charging infrastructure at BGO and SVG, with the aim that these two cities will be among the first in the world to see large scale application of battery powered aircraft in commercial operations. We are talking details, including which gates should have charging infrastructure etc. Rapid charging of one aircraft requires more power than the entire airport combined, These two airports have daily around 18 to 20 departures in each direction, mostly 737-800, but also quite a few CRJ-1000. The distance between these airports is about 80 nm, or 20 minutes flight time. In other words ideal for early adoption of electric aircraft.

Why Norway? We are talking about a country where government subsidies is available and the common way of doing things. It is a country where already more than 50% of new cars are electric. Due to huge subsidies, Tesla is the most sold car. From 2025, new cars that uses fossil fuels can't be sold. This is a country where battery powered ro-ro car ferries is the norm. All along the coastline these ferries, with hundreds of cars onboard, cross the fjords and automatically starts changing while at port. Hydroelectric power is in abundance. All ferries have been developed and built with huge subsidies.

There has been many meetings between the Royal Ministry of Transportation and Airbus. Who knows what they talking about.

The next clean-sheet will not be an A330 replacement or an NMA. It will be a small, light weight, very short-ranged, fully electric aircraft. After that we might see an A320 replacement around year 2035. Interesting times ahead,


Crude oil and natural gas accounted for 40-50% of the Norways total export value. That how they pay for the green technology. Don't think about it.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:57 pm

N14AZ wrote:
That being said, one can still dream, right?
Image

You've got my attention. More details about your cleansheet design please.
We might be spoiling some of Airbus secrets here, I fear.
It looks like a wide-body, with Cleansky U-tale and laminar flow wing. Am I correct?
I had a similar configuration in mind for a CRJ replacement, engines with >50 compression ratio and fan ~15 BPR, unducted fan ~25 BPR.
60; 80 and 100 seat 18" 4AB 30-31" pitch (full economy), I think this could match the 50 & 76 seat scope-clause sizes.

For a A300-600R/F an A330-200 ~200mT MTOW replacement, I think the laminar flow wing will be to wide for D-size gates / handling area's. This would require folding wings. I think the Sharklets A320 or A380plus desing are more likely. And I still under wing mounted engines.
In my oppinion the tale plane has to be tweaked a little bit, to accommodate a oversized cargo door. AKA 747F / Beluga replacement.

Edit to add: AFAIK BFR can be increased in two methods;
1) Increasing fan size, with the same core size
2) Using similar fan size with a smaller core size.
I think the current engines are suffering from to large core sizes, P(ressure),V (Speed) of the seals gets to high.
I think for a MOM or A300 replacement the fansize should be ~100", the core must be made more compact to reach ~15 BPR.
Last edited by CFRPwingALbody on Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:59 pm

reidar76 wrote:
This is a country where battery powered ro-ro car ferries is the norm. All along the coastline these ferries, with hundreds of cars onboard, cross the fjords and automatically starts changing while at port. Hydroelectric power is in abundance. All ferries have been developed and built with huge subsidies.


I was lucky enough to be in Norway over the summer - beautiful country - but on all the ferries I was on (and it was several), none were electric. You sure they are in service yet?

[This was in the run down from Alesund to Bergen so quite a few fjords]
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:01 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
You've got my attention. More details about your cleansheet design please.
We might be spoiling some of Airbus secrets here, I fear.


Not really secrets any more.

Swap the empennage for a T-tail and that was A30X plan B.

edit: Top one of these two:

Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:09 pm

I think it will really depend on what Boeing does in the NSA/NMA space.

If Boeing does the tight Light 7W cross section for both with two sets of wings/gear/tails/engines then Airbus would be smart to follow and go 7W (to replace the A330 as well) and then they can fight from below with an A220-500 and possibly 700 with an new wing.

They just won't be able to stretch the A320 enough to match the 7W in Capacity.

However if Boeing does a new 6W then just do the A220-500 with existing wing and rewing the A320 - stretching the 320 to 200 Y seats and the 321 to an A322 - A321 plus another 3-4 rows like Keesje is proposing.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:49 pm

What was the capacity of this A30X? Is this 4 AB CRJ-side, 5 AB (A220), 6AB (A320) or 8AB (A330 size)?
How do you think about the safety of the emergency exit's right in front of the rear mounted engines?

I totally disagree on airbus developing a Battery Electric plane. I think that's a nogo because of safety and energy mass density.
The most I expect to see is hybrid architectures, with more engines. The E-fan-X demonstrator with rolls-royce being the example.
But if CO2 emissions are a problem, it's because often a good supply of CO2 is wasted!
I think CO2 is one of the solutions of our energy problem. Indeed we must reduce our reliance on fossile hydrocarbons. But we can also create hydrocarbons using surplus renewable energy and CO2. In greenhouses CO2 levels are raised to increase crop output.
The next 50 years I expect most aviation will remain relying on combustion, because of the high power, high energy mass and volume density requirements. Besides the high safety and reliability demands.
I expect only small regional planes (<40pax) will be fully electrified. All larger planed and longer range planes will remain using hydrocarbons, but how they are sourced will change. E-Fan X is a hybrid plane demonstrator replacing one or two of the engines with an electric fan. I expect that when planes are made more hybrid, we'll se the return of tri and quad engine planes.
AFAIK this is also a concept of a hybrid, with a giant APU/ fan generator in the center and 6 electric fans on the U-tale.
Image
edit source: Airbus & SAS sign hybrid & electric aircraft research agreement

And let's make clear that I'm totally against decabonisation. Atomic element 6 is a crucial part of our lives. If you want to stop CO2 emissions, first study what you breath in and what you breath out. And it hypocritical to push for decarbonisation and CFRP, it's decarbonise or CFRP you can't have both.
 
moa999
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:45 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
I was lucky enough to be in Norway over the summer - beautiful country - but on all the ferries I was on (and it was several), none were electric. You sure they are in service yet?


The electric ferries in Norway are on very specific routes where it works - short ones where it spends more time charging than ferrying:

The electric ferry named Ampere entered into service in early 2015. It crosses the Sognefjord about 34 times a day (17 round trips) and has a capacity of 360 passengers and 120 cars. The 6 km crossing takes 20 minutes.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5100
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:18 am

PM wrote:
The A330neo won't last forever and it's a big jump from the A321 to the A350. Just saying...

At some point Airbus will need an airplane in the 767-300 to 787-8 weight class . It's going to be smaller than the A330 but larger than the A321. . They're not gaining ground just building a larger airplane than whatever Boeing is proposing especially now that Boeing has been burned BADLY with their arrogance with the 737 MAX.
I can't see them making that mistake anytime soon and I see them transferring more technology from the Fighters to update the commercial designs,
 
UAUA
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:26 am

What about a BWB or a twin engine super jumbo?
My former profile name was United Airline.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:26 am

UAUA wrote:
What about a BWB or a twin engine super jumbo?


Yes of course

The oval, hybrid, cargo less, carbon neutral flying miracles, that will change the way we travel in the not to distant future while preserving our environment for future generations.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:18 am

A220 and A350 are relatively new air frames. There is a lot of incremental improvements to do on those frames before a new clean-sheet aircrafts.

Technological advances like 1-pilot flight deck (I bet for 2023) or open rotor engines (2030) will be first installed on A320 test frames, then on the A220-500 (the replacement of A320 family for the next decades) and A350ULR. regarding widebodies, the A350 frame is performing enough to launch a 2030 neo version that will still be relevant. Nothing above 450 seats though.

Electrical side will require a lot of technological improvement regarding batteries. I can imagine an all-electrical ATR-42 for 2030, It will not receive a lot of orders (High-Speed Train competition and maybe Hyperloop), but for some countries without large rail transportation network like New Zealand, it could be interesting. Add the green PR effect for the airlines, and technical data for Airbus/ATR and it's a win-win situation.

That's a lot of predictions but it looks plausible to me.
Caravelle lover
 
Noshow
Posts: 1819
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:24 am

While I might sound old fashioned I don't see single pilot crews coming up as redundancy, one of aviation's main principles, would be lost. Possibly long range crews might shrink to two but not below two.

Maybe we'll have automatic unmanned freighters flying in "buddy" formation with a manned airplane but manned aircraft will need at least two pilots for a long time to come. Human pilots are needed for all major issues where you cannot rely on automatic and datalink systems to work as planned anymore. And some flight attendant trained to push the "land now" autopilot button would not be enough.
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:31 am

Noshow wrote:
While I might sound old fashioned I don't see single pilot crews coming up as redundancy, one of aviation's main principles, would be lost. Possibly long range crews might shrink to two but not below two.

Maybe we'll have automatic unmanned freighters flying in "buddy" formation with a manned airplane but manned aircraft will need at least two pilots for a long time to come. Human pilots are needed for all major issues where you cannot rely on automatic and datalink systems to work as planned anymore. And some flight attendant trained to push the "land now" autopilot button would not be enough.


And I surely sound too futuristic. The truth likely lies somewhere between our theories.

I agree on the freighter part. Amazon packages are easier to convince than people.
Caravelle lover
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:14 am

moa999 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
I was lucky enough to be in Norway over the summer - beautiful country - but on all the ferries I was on (and it was several), none were electric. You sure they are in service yet?


The electric ferries in Norway are on very specific routes where it works - short ones where it spends more time charging than ferrying:

The electric ferry named Ampere entered into service in early 2015. It crosses the Sognefjord about 34 times a day (17 round trips) and has a capacity of 360 passengers and 120 cars. The 6 km crossing takes 20 minutes.


The big change is not electric ferries, but hybrid. Electric drive. You run the engines at full efficiency most of the time. The engines just produce electricity. For harbour maneuvering you only run one of several, or on battery. Connecting to land you connect also a electrical connection. It brings about 20% better fuel burn on a route I have followed.
 
moa999
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:27 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The big change is not electric ferries, but hybrid. Electric drive. You run the engines at full efficiency most of the time. The engines just produce electricity.


It's a mix. Full battery electric works perfectly for these short ferry routes, 20min trip, 30min unload/load/charge, same with many bus/ light rail routes with on route chargin, and consumer vehicles like your 400km range Tesla's.

The dynamics totally change on say a 6hr trip ferry or train route. Here I suspect Hydrogen is the key for low/no emission public transport.

Planes I suspect fall into a similar category, but will require a complete redesign to take hydrogen fuel
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:56 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
What was the capacity of this A30X? Is this 4 AB CRJ-side, 5 AB (A220), 6AB (A320) or 8AB (A330 size)?


6 AB of course. That will always be the optimum single aisle solution for the biggest segment of the market.

Max capacity was similar to todays A321 - but the two variants under it were closer than A319/A320 (I think most would accept the gap from A320 to A321 is a bit larger than ideal - although perhaps it forces airlines into paying out the premium for the A321 quicker than they might otherwise do - so while engineers might say the gap is too big - accountants might say its just fine).
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3713
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:36 am

morrisond wrote:
If Boeing does the tight Light 7W cross section for both with two sets of wings/gear/tails/engines then Airbus would be smart to follow and go
...with the same technology that enables the 7W to be as light as you describe and use the fundamental per seat weight advantage that the 6W that has lower weight per seat and therefore derive operating cost advantage and lower risk.

morrisond wrote:
They just won't be able to stretch the A320 enough to match the 7W in Capacity.
Meh. neither could the 77W match A380 capacity, how'd that pan out?

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:55 am

Noshow wrote:
While I might sound old fashioned I don't see single pilot crews coming up as redundancy, one of aviation's main principles, would be lost. Possibly long range crews might shrink to two but not below two.

Maybe we'll have automatic unmanned freighters flying in "buddy" formation with a manned airplane but manned aircraft will need at least two pilots for a long time to come. Human pilots are needed for all major issues where you cannot rely on automatic and datalink systems to work as planned anymore. And some flight attendant trained to push the "land now" autopilot button would not be enough.


However recent experience has shown handing over control to an Co-pilot has not worked out so well.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:03 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If Boeing does the tight Light 7W cross section for both with two sets of wings/gear/tails/engines then Airbus would be smart to follow and go
...with the same technology that enables the 7W to be as light as you describe and use the fundamental per seat weight advantage that the 6W that has lower weight per seat and therefore derive operating cost advantage and lower risk.

morrisond wrote:
They just won't be able to stretch the A320 enough to match the 7W in Capacity.
Meh. neither could the 77W match A380 capacity, how'd that pan out?

Fred


You have not proven (and neither have I) that 6W or 7W has an advantage/disadvantage in terms of weight. However I would suggest that within Y the delta is equivalent to the disadvantage the A320 suffers from vs the 737 which doesn't seem to hurt it that much - however in the front in domestic business class in a 7W you could go 2x2x2 on 7W vs 2x2 on 6W - 50% more capacity for only 25% more cross section - that is a big advantage - that has to be lighter. Plus you would pick up 50% more space in the belly per M of Fuselage which is a big advantage as well.

Going Ovalish does have some big advantages as you are adding comparatively little structure to pick up a lot of Capacity.

Even Keesje seems to be warming to the idea above (just kidding). He just wants Boeing to commit to 6W as he knows Airbus will go second and trump them with a tight light 7W.

Airbus is really smart to wait until Boeing commits which is what it sounds like they will do.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:31 pm

morrisond wrote:
Plus you would pick up 50% more space in the belly per M of Fuselage which is a big advantage as well.


A 3-3 circular fuselage would be lighter and longer than same seat capacity 2-3-2. So also a longer cargo belly, housing more standard AKH containers and pallets than a undefined wider container.

Image

It is looking more more likely a Boeing FSA will follow Airbus in offering

:arrow: an efficient 3-3
:arrow: high BPR engine choice,
:arrow: container options
:arrow: FBW
:arrow: up to 250 seat capacity
:arrow: up to 4000NM range
:arrow: an OEW under 50t.

If they do not, the damage to their market position will grow even bigger and deeper. And it seems to be sinking in, finaly.

Airbus will likely do some more tricks and enhancements on the NEO. PIPS, stretches, options, upgrades.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:48 pm

keesje wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Plus you would pick up 50% more space in the belly per M of Fuselage which is a big advantage as well.


A 3-3 circular fuselage would be lighter and longer than same seat capacity 2-3-2. So also a longer cargo belly, housing more standard AKH containers and pallets than a undefined wider container.

Image

It is looking more more likely a Boeing FSA will follow Airbus in offering

:arrow: an efficient 3-3
:arrow: high BPR engine choice,
:arrow: container options
:arrow: FBW
:arrow: up to 250 seat capacity
:arrow: up to 4000NM range
:arrow: an OEW under 50t.

If they do not, the damage to their market position will grow even bigger and deeper. And it seems to be sinking in, finaly.

Airbus will likely do some more tricks and enhancements on the NEO. PIPS, stretches, options, upgrades.


It is kind of crazy how much unused space an ovoid shape needs to fly around. Without a new container and therefore a lot of costs for ground equipment the only option would be bulk loading but then you would have horrible turn around times with a frame that needs to bulk load for 200+ travelers.

Then it is also 30cm higher for no gain at all next to the obvious wider shape.

Looking at this cross section I can not see how the MOM7-200 would beat the NSA6-200 in any metric other than, that there is a possibility to have a 300+ single class frame. but anything under 250 single class can not be economical and would be trashed by the NSA6-200.

NLT7-200 needs another 10% diameter increase and go 8AB, otherwise it also carries to much structure for the possible gain in passenger numbers.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3713
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:24 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If Boeing does the tight Light 7W cross section for both with two sets of wings/gear/tails/engines then Airbus would be smart to follow and go
...with the same technology that enables the 7W to be as light as you describe and use the fundamental per seat weight advantage that the 6W that has lower weight per seat and therefore derive operating cost advantage and lower risk.

morrisond wrote:
They just won't be able to stretch the A320 enough to match the 7W in Capacity.
Meh. neither could the 77W match A380 capacity, how'd that pan out?

Fred


You have not proven (and neither have I) that 6W or 7W has an advantage/disadvantage in terms of weight.

1. on a directly comparative level of circular vs circular the hoop stresses from pressurisation scale with the square of the diameter and therefore for equal floor area (the 7w requiring less length) the 7w pressure vessel is heavier proportionally with the width of the fuselage.
2. A non circular pressure vessel adds other, non tension loads to the outside of the vessel requiring a larger thickness
3. a wide oval under pressure has the effect of causing the floor to be in compression which requires the floor beams to be more complex and heavy.
4. Narrowing the oval in the vertical sense lowers the second moment of area and therefore inherent stiffness of the structure meaning that the structure will become bending moment limited at a shorter length minimising the benefits of a widebody at greater capacities.

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:40 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
...with the same technology that enables the 7W to be as light as you describe and use the fundamental per seat weight advantage that the 6W that has lower weight per seat and therefore derive operating cost advantage and lower risk.

Meh. neither could the 77W match A380 capacity, how'd that pan out?

Fred


You have not proven (and neither have I) that 6W or 7W has an advantage/disadvantage in terms of weight.

1. on a directly comparative level of circular vs circular the hoop stresses from pressurisation scale with the square of the diameter and therefore for equal floor area (the 7w requiring less length) the 7w pressure vessel is heavier proportionally with the width of the fuselage.
2. A non circular pressure vessel adds other, non tension loads to the outside of the vessel requiring a larger thickness
3. a wide oval under pressure has the effect of causing the floor to be in compression which requires the floor beams to be more complex and heavy.
4. Narrowing the oval in the vertical sense lowers the second moment of area and therefore inherent stiffness of the structure meaning that the structure will become bending moment limited at a shorter length minimising the benefits of a widebody at greater capacities.

Fred


We have debated this multiple times - the Rumor is Boeing is using something like half a circle on top and 1/3 of a bigger circle on the bottom - that takes care of a lot of the hoop stresses and the floor compression issues.

One of the negatives of using Carbon in a 6W is that it needs to be thicker than optimal for impact strength. This excess strength can be used to build more unconventional shapes at no huge weight penalty - not total circles - Ribs could be thinner meaning less outside width.

For 7W the width could be less than 185" - not 194" and the height somewhere around 165-170ish". A 777X exterior width is 244" with 10 18" W seats. So take 3 seats off that (one out of each set 2x3x2 vs 3x4x3) at 18" each plus 1.5" armrest gets you to 185.5" then reduce seat width to 737 standard 17.3 - which would be another 7x.7" or 4.9" you get an outside fuselage width of 180.6" with 737 comfort in Y.

Probably not quite that tight but somewhere in the range of 181-185" - tight and light.

So it needs a new container. No big deal - there would be thousand's flying.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:07 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

You have not proven (and neither have I) that 6W or 7W has an advantage/disadvantage in terms of weight.

1. on a directly comparative level of circular vs circular the hoop stresses from pressurisation scale with the square of the diameter and therefore for equal floor area (the 7w requiring less length) the 7w pressure vessel is heavier proportionally with the width of the fuselage.
2. A non circular pressure vessel adds other, non tension loads to the outside of the vessel requiring a larger thickness
3. a wide oval under pressure has the effect of causing the floor to be in compression which requires the floor beams to be more complex and heavy.
4. Narrowing the oval in the vertical sense lowers the second moment of area and therefore inherent stiffness of the structure meaning that the structure will become bending moment limited at a shorter length minimising the benefits of a widebody at greater capacities.

Fred


We have debated this multiple times - the Rumor is Boeing is using something like half a circle on top and 1/3 of a bigger circle on the bottom - that takes care of a lot of the hoop stresses and the floor compression issues.



But how?

The largest diameter is not where the floor is, it is roughly where the seat padding you sit on is, so you need around 55% of the upper circle. This would at least solve the problem of variable curvature around the cut out features but the change in curvature at the joint where the two circles meet, would result in complex stresses and a kink. To avoid the kink you would have to have variable curvature in one of the circles close to the point where they meet. Problem with this is, really close to where the two circles meet is the lower end of the passenger doors and the upper end of the cargo doors.

If you do not have variable curvature then at the point the two circles meet you have stresses that have different directions (the center of the two circles are not in the same spot), so forces perpendicular and horizontal to the fuselage are not "aligned", which means at the point where the two circles are meeting additional sheer stresses occur compared to a cylindrical fuselage. From an engineering perspective this is no problem but it will add complexity, weight and additional costs to overcome the problem.

No one says you can not build it but it is only worth it if the additional seat can generate enough revenue to overcome the additional cost from weight and production.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:19 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
1. on a directly comparative level of circular vs circular the hoop stresses from pressurisation scale with the square of the diameter and therefore for equal floor area (the 7w requiring less length) the 7w pressure vessel is heavier proportionally with the width of the fuselage.
2. A non circular pressure vessel adds other, non tension loads to the outside of the vessel requiring a larger thickness
3. a wide oval under pressure has the effect of causing the floor to be in compression which requires the floor beams to be more complex and heavy.
4. Narrowing the oval in the vertical sense lowers the second moment of area and therefore inherent stiffness of the structure meaning that the structure will become bending moment limited at a shorter length minimising the benefits of a widebody at greater capacities.

Fred


We have debated this multiple times - the Rumor is Boeing is using something like half a circle on top and 1/3 of a bigger circle on the bottom - that takes care of a lot of the hoop stresses and the floor compression issues.



But how?

The largest diameter is not where the floor is, it is roughly where the seat padding you sit on is, so you need around 55% of the upper circle. This would at least solve the problem of variable curvature around the cut out features but the change in curvature at the joint where the two circles meet, would result in complex stresses and a kink. To avoid the kink you would have to have variable curvature in one of the circles close to the point where they meet. Problem with this is, really close to where the two circles meet is the lower end of the passenger doors and the upper end of the cargo doors.

If you do not have variable curvature then at the point the two circles meet you have stresses that have different directions (the center of the two circles are not in the same spot), so forces perpendicular and horizontal to the fuselage are not "aligned", which means at the point where the two circles are meeting additional sheer stresses occur compared to a cylindrical fuselage. From an engineering perspective this is no problem but it will add complexity, weight and additional costs to overcome the problem.

No one says you can not build it but it is only worth it if the additional seat can generate enough revenue to overcome the additional cost from weight and production.


No one really knows how they will do it - all we think we know is that NMA was strongly rumored to be 7W and Ovalish, as was NSA. Due to the specific properties of Carbon non-traditional shapes can be explored and taken advantage of.

It seems like Boeing has been working on this for 10-20 years - I'm sure Airbus is as well - as someone remarked above those A30XX concepts don't look like Single Aisle's.

Almost all of the advanced concepts we are seeing are wider. It would seem a shame not to use the advantages of the material going forward.

A flatter Cross Section may have some aero advantages as well in terms of generating lift.

I would be very surprised if the next cross section by B or A isn't something we haven't seen before.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:38 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

We have debated this multiple times - the Rumor is Boeing is using something like half a circle on top and 1/3 of a bigger circle on the bottom - that takes care of a lot of the hoop stresses and the floor compression issues.



But how?

The largest diameter is not where the floor is, it is roughly where the seat padding you sit on is, so you need around 55% of the upper circle. This would at least solve the problem of variable curvature around the cut out features but the change in curvature at the joint where the two circles meet, would result in complex stresses and a kink. To avoid the kink you would have to have variable curvature in one of the circles close to the point where they meet. Problem with this is, really close to where the two circles meet is the lower end of the passenger doors and the upper end of the cargo doors.

If you do not have variable curvature then at the point the two circles meet you have stresses that have different directions (the center of the two circles are not in the same spot), so forces perpendicular and horizontal to the fuselage are not "aligned", which means at the point where the two circles are meeting additional sheer stresses occur compared to a cylindrical fuselage. From an engineering perspective this is no problem but it will add complexity, weight and additional costs to overcome the problem.

No one says you can not build it but it is only worth it if the additional seat can generate enough revenue to overcome the additional cost from weight and production.


No one really knows how they will do it - all we think we know is that NMA was strongly rumored to be 7W and Ovalish, as was NSA. Due to the specific properties of Carbon non-traditional shapes can be explored and taken advantage of.

It seems like Boeing has been working on this for 10-20 years - I'm sure Airbus is as well - as someone remarked above those A30XX concepts don't look like Single Aisle's.

Almost all of the advanced concepts we are seeing are wider. It would seem a shame not to use the advantages of the material going forward.

A flatter Cross Section may have some aero advantages as well in terms of generating lift.

I would be very surprised if the next cross section by B or A isn't something we haven't seen before.


So you believe that Airbus or Boeing would produce a new type of fuselage for an aircraft that is intended to be mass produced and sold at a profit without ever building a prototype which actually flew?

We are not in the 50s anymore where something like this was possible. A shot in the dark hoping the best. Design studies and so are nice but for a throw like this you need prototype aircraft and lots and lots of tests. If Boeing wants to do that, ok but then EIS is 2030+, or we risk Comet level of risks.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3713
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:42 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

You have not proven (and neither have I) that 6W or 7W has an advantage/disadvantage in terms of weight.

1. on a directly comparative level of circular vs circular the hoop stresses from pressurisation scale with the square of the diameter and therefore for equal floor area (the 7w requiring less length) the 7w pressure vessel is heavier proportionally with the width of the fuselage.
2. A non circular pressure vessel adds other, non tension loads to the outside of the vessel requiring a larger thickness
3. a wide oval under pressure has the effect of causing the floor to be in compression which requires the floor beams to be more complex and heavy.
4. Narrowing the oval in the vertical sense lowers the second moment of area and therefore inherent stiffness of the structure meaning that the structure will become bending moment limited at a shorter length minimising the benefits of a widebody at greater capacities.

Fred


We have debated this multiple times - the Rumor is Boeing is using something like half a circle on top and 1/3 of a bigger circle on the bottom - that takes care of a lot of the hoop stresses and the floor compression issues.


1. No it doesn’t
2. It’s a bit of a stretch to call it a rumour when all it is was the postulation of somebody on an a.net thread, namely yourself, when this same issue came up last time.


morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

We have debated this multiple times - the Rumor is Boeing is using something like half a circle on top and 1/3 of a bigger circle on the bottom - that takes care of a lot of the hoop stresses and the floor compression issues.



But how?

The largest diameter is not where the floor is, it is roughly where the seat padding you sit on is, so you need around 55% of the upper circle. This would at least solve the problem of variable curvature around the cut out features but the change in curvature at the joint where the two circles meet, would result in complex stresses and a kink. To avoid the kink you would have to have variable curvature in one of the circles close to the point where they meet. Problem with this is, really close to where the two circles meet is the lower end of the passenger doors and the upper end of the cargo doors.

If you do not have variable curvature then at the point the two circles meet you have stresses that have different directions (the center of the two circles are not in the same spot), so forces perpendicular and horizontal to the fuselage are not "aligned", which means at the point where the two circles are meeting additional sheer stresses occur compared to a cylindrical fuselage. From an engineering perspective this is no problem but it will add complexity, weight and additional costs to overcome the problem.

No one says you can not build it but it is only worth it if the additional seat can generate enough revenue to overcome the additional cost from weight and production.


No one really knows how they will do it - all we think we know is that NMA was strongly rumored to be 7W and Ovalish, as was NSA. Due to the specific properties of Carbon non-traditional shapes can be explored and taken advantage of.

This is potentially true, he layup techniques allow more complex shapes to be made as well as potentially allowing different shapes due to minimum material thicknesses being driven from other constraints. Also worth noting that the properties worth noting that the properties of CFRP that allow you to make longer thinner wings also allows you to make longer, thinner fuselages.... that minimum material thickness could play both ways.

morrisond wrote:

It seems like Boeing has been working on this for 10-20 years - I'm sure Airbus is as well - as someone remarked above those A30XX concepts don't look like Single Aisle's.

During a project in 2007 a member of the Airbus future projects team said to me (this is a direct quote), “Dont build a wide oval, it’s a stupid idea”

morrisond wrote:

Almost all of the advanced concepts we are seeing are wider. It would seem a shame not to use the advantages of the material going forward.

Keesjes picture in that is all that needs to be said, he has posted before with all the concepts and then the reality of what is offered. Unfortunately it’s a mature, commoditised industry, the last real innovation came from mr whittle, the rest was marginal gains.

morrisond wrote:

A flatter Cross Section may have some aero advantages as well in terms of generating lift.

I would be very surprised if the next cross section by B or A isn't something we haven't seen before.
I would be very surprised if it was something different(I would be super happy though)

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:49 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

But how?

The largest diameter is not where the floor is, it is roughly where the seat padding you sit on is, so you need around 55% of the upper circle. This would at least solve the problem of variable curvature around the cut out features but the change in curvature at the joint where the two circles meet, would result in complex stresses and a kink. To avoid the kink you would have to have variable curvature in one of the circles close to the point where they meet. Problem with this is, really close to where the two circles meet is the lower end of the passenger doors and the upper end of the cargo doors.

If you do not have variable curvature then at the point the two circles meet you have stresses that have different directions (the center of the two circles are not in the same spot), so forces perpendicular and horizontal to the fuselage are not "aligned", which means at the point where the two circles are meeting additional sheer stresses occur compared to a cylindrical fuselage. From an engineering perspective this is no problem but it will add complexity, weight and additional costs to overcome the problem.

No one says you can not build it but it is only worth it if the additional seat can generate enough revenue to overcome the additional cost from weight and production.


No one really knows how they will do it - all we think we know is that NMA was strongly rumored to be 7W and Ovalish, as was NSA. Due to the specific properties of Carbon non-traditional shapes can be explored and taken advantage of.

It seems like Boeing has been working on this for 10-20 years - I'm sure Airbus is as well - as someone remarked above those A30XX concepts don't look like Single Aisle's.

Almost all of the advanced concepts we are seeing are wider. It would seem a shame not to use the advantages of the material going forward.

A flatter Cross Section may have some aero advantages as well in terms of generating lift.

I would be very surprised if the next cross section by B or A isn't something we haven't seen before.


So you believe that Airbus or Boeing would produce a new type of fuselage for an aircraft that is intended to be mass produced and sold at a profit without ever building a prototype which actually flew?

We are not in the 50s anymore where something like this was possible. A shot in the dark hoping the best. Design studies and so are nice but for a throw like this you need prototype aircraft and lots and lots of tests. If Boeing wants to do that, ok but then EIS is 2030+, or we risk Comet level of risks.


We also have computers that are slightly more powerful than the 1950's - yet Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks were able to do the SR-71 which is pretty non-conventional and a quasi lifting body with slide rulers back in the 50's.

A prototype to prove the concept could be done very quickly to prove the concept just like Boeing has done for the T-X program. You wouldn't need the higher thrust engines until later.

Boeing has been working on this a long time and before the MAX grounding 1,000+ engineers were working on it - but it also why they will probably do NMA first at lower volumes. If Airbus goes 7W I would expect them to follow the same strategy - bigger winged/longer ranged lower volume model first while keeping A320 in production then transition to the new cross section with a smaller wing and lower range later to replace A320.

Airbus will have more than a few people working on advanced concepts even right now other than just those drawing pretty concepts.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:56 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

No one really knows how they will do it - all we think we know is that NMA was strongly rumored to be 7W and Ovalish, as was NSA. Due to the specific properties of Carbon non-traditional shapes can be explored and taken advantage of.

It seems like Boeing has been working on this for 10-20 years - I'm sure Airbus is as well - as someone remarked above those A30XX concepts don't look like Single Aisle's.

Almost all of the advanced concepts we are seeing are wider. It would seem a shame not to use the advantages of the material going forward.

A flatter Cross Section may have some aero advantages as well in terms of generating lift.

I would be very surprised if the next cross section by B or A isn't something we haven't seen before.


So you believe that Airbus or Boeing would produce a new type of fuselage for an aircraft that is intended to be mass produced and sold at a profit without ever building a prototype which actually flew?

We are not in the 50s anymore where something like this was possible. A shot in the dark hoping the best. Design studies and so are nice but for a throw like this you need prototype aircraft and lots and lots of tests. If Boeing wants to do that, ok but then EIS is 2030+, or we risk Comet level of risks.


We also have computers that are slightly more powerful than the 1950's - yet Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks were able to do the SR-71 which is pretty non-conventional and a quasi lifting body with slide rulers back in the 50's.

A prototype to prove the concept could be done very quickly to prove the concept just like Boeing has done for the T-X program. You wouldn't need the higher thrust engines until later.

Boeing has been working on this a long time and before the MAX grounding 1,000+ engineers were working on it - but it also why they will probably do NMA first at lower volumes. If Airbus goes 7W I would expect them to follow the same strategy - bigger winged/longer ranged lower volume model first while keeping A320 in production then transition to the new cross section with a smaller wing and lower range later to replace A320.

Airbus will have more than a few people working on advanced concepts even right now other than just those drawing pretty concepts.


Computers are nice but models are based on assumptions and to verify them you need a prototype or an existing frame you know the properties.

The SR-71 was never mass produced nor in anyway efficient. It was good at its job but in all other things a horrible construction like a lot of things build for the army during the cold war.

So the T-X program. In 8 Years from the prototype to IOC. As I said for the NMA that means EIS in 2030+.

Boeing will go as traditional and risk free as possible for their next program to avoid anything similar to the MAX. No business goes full risk after suffering a major blow.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:24 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
1. on a directly comparative level of circular vs circular the hoop stresses from pressurisation scale with the square of the diameter and therefore for equal floor area (the 7w requiring less length) the 7w pressure vessel is heavier proportionally with the width of the fuselage.
2. A non circular pressure vessel adds other, non tension loads to the outside of the vessel requiring a larger thickness
3. a wide oval under pressure has the effect of causing the floor to be in compression which requires the floor beams to be more complex and heavy.
4. Narrowing the oval in the vertical sense lowers the second moment of area and therefore inherent stiffness of the structure meaning that the structure will become bending moment limited at a shorter length minimising the benefits of a widebody at greater capacities.

Fred


We have debated this multiple times - the Rumor is Boeing is using something like half a circle on top and 1/3 of a bigger circle on the bottom - that takes care of a lot of the hoop stresses and the floor compression issues.


1. No it doesn’t
2. It’s a bit of a stretch to call it a rumour when all it is was the postulation of somebody on an a.net thread, namely yourself, when this same issue came up last time.


No it wasn't me it was John Ostrower https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

But how?

The largest diameter is not where the floor is, it is roughly where the seat padding you sit on is, so you need around 55% of the upper circle. This would at least solve the problem of variable curvature around the cut out features but the change in curvature at the joint where the two circles meet, would result in complex stresses and a kink. To avoid the kink you would have to have variable curvature in one of the circles close to the point where they meet. Problem with this is, really close to where the two circles meet is the lower end of the passenger doors and the upper end of the cargo doors.

If you do not have variable curvature then at the point the two circles meet you have stresses that have different directions (the center of the two circles are not in the same spot), so forces perpendicular and horizontal to the fuselage are not "aligned", which means at the point where the two circles are meeting additional sheer stresses occur compared to a cylindrical fuselage. From an engineering perspective this is no problem but it will add complexity, weight and additional costs to overcome the problem.

No one says you can not build it but it is only worth it if the additional seat can generate enough revenue to overcome the additional cost from weight and production.


No one really knows how they will do it - all we think we know is that NMA was strongly rumored to be 7W and Ovalish, as was NSA. Due to the specific properties of Carbon non-traditional shapes can be explored and taken advantage of.

This is potentially true, he layup techniques allow more complex shapes to be made as well as potentially allowing different shapes due to minimum material thicknesses being driven from other constraints. Also worth noting that the properties worth noting that the properties of CFRP that allow you to make longer thinner wings also allows you to make longer, thinner fuselages.... that minimum material thickness could play both ways.

Yes longer thinner fuselages makes an A220-500 and 700 possible - really creeping into 738/A320 territory and narrowing the seat range where 6W works. Make 6W too long and Boarding/Deplanning issues along with moving around the cabin issues arise - unless you make the Aisle really wide but then your cross section (if Circular) won't be much different than a 7W with 16.7% less seats in Y - 50% less up front.

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

It seems like Boeing has been working on this for 10-20 years - I'm sure Airbus is as well - as someone remarked above those A30XX concepts don't look like Single Aisle's.

During a project in 2007 a member of the Airbus future projects team said to me (this is a direct quote), “Dont build a wide oval, it’s a stupid idea”

Yes a traditional Oval does seem stupid - it sounds like Boeing has come up with something else and I would stunned if Airbus hasn't thought of it as well.
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Almost all of the advanced concepts we are seeing are wider. It would seem a shame not to use the advantages of the material going forward.

Keesjes picture in that is all that needs to be said, he has posted before with all the concepts and then the reality of what is offered. Unfortunately it’s a mature, commoditised industry, the last real innovation came from mr whittle, the rest was marginal gains.


I think we will be pleasantly surprised going forward as some of the concepts are promising big gains - there is always the BWB concepts that cut drag something on the order of 25% don't they? We just have to figure out how to build them profitably - but it will happen - maybe by legislation mandating lower C02 emissions.

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

A flatter Cross Section may have some aero advantages as well in terms of generating lift.

I would be very surprised if the next cross section by B or A isn't something we haven't seen before.
I would be very surprised if it was something different(I would be super happy though)

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Me too. If Boeing does do NMA/NSA based on new cross section but conventional Tube and Wing layout with engines underneath the wings - Airbus's trump card as they will go second could be something a lot more radical with big gains like the concepts above.
Last edited by morrisond on Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:28 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

So you believe that Airbus or Boeing would produce a new type of fuselage for an aircraft that is intended to be mass produced and sold at a profit without ever building a prototype which actually flew?

We are not in the 50s anymore where something like this was possible. A shot in the dark hoping the best. Design studies and so are nice but for a throw like this you need prototype aircraft and lots and lots of tests. If Boeing wants to do that, ok but then EIS is 2030+, or we risk Comet level of risks.


We also have computers that are slightly more powerful than the 1950's - yet Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks were able to do the SR-71 which is pretty non-conventional and a quasi lifting body with slide rulers back in the 50's.

A prototype to prove the concept could be done very quickly to prove the concept just like Boeing has done for the T-X program. You wouldn't need the higher thrust engines until later.

Boeing has been working on this a long time and before the MAX grounding 1,000+ engineers were working on it - but it also why they will probably do NMA first at lower volumes. If Airbus goes 7W I would expect them to follow the same strategy - bigger winged/longer ranged lower volume model first while keeping A320 in production then transition to the new cross section with a smaller wing and lower range later to replace A320.

Airbus will have more than a few people working on advanced concepts even right now other than just those drawing pretty concepts.


Computers are nice but models are based on assumptions and to verify them you need a prototype or an existing frame you know the properties.

The SR-71 was never mass produced nor in anyway efficient. It was good at its job but in all other things a horrible construction like a lot of things build for the army during the cold war.

So the T-X program. In 8 Years from the prototype to IOC. As I said for the NMA that means EIS in 2030+.

Boeing will go as traditional and risk free as possible for their next program to avoid anything similar to the MAX. No business goes full risk after suffering a major blow.


All they would be doing would be an unconventional cross section - almost everything else ( nose design, systems, wing) would be 787 Based.

It's the production system where they could make big gains.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:44 pm

I forsee the most likely opportunity for clean-sheet Airbus aircraft coming as an ATR replacement, with new engines and possibly a stretch to 90-100 pax. Increasing ESG push by governments is going to put pressure on airlines to curb carbon emissions, especially on regional/short route lengths. That's where a fuel-efficient turboprop could shine as a replacement for older RJs.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:37 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
I forsee the most likely opportunity for clean-sheet Airbus aircraft coming as an ATR replacement, with new engines and possibly a stretch to 90-100 pax. Increasing ESG push by governments is going to put pressure on airlines to curb carbon emissions, especially on regional/short route lengths. That's where a fuel-efficient turboprop could shine as a replacement for older RJs.


I think Leonardo has been pushing here for some time, but little progress..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Heinkel
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:55 pm

reidar76 wrote:

Why Norway? We are talking about a country where government subsidies is available and the common way of doing things. It is a country where already more than 50% of new cars are electric. Due to huge subsidies, Tesla is the most sold car. From 2025, new cars that uses fossil fuels can't be sold. This is a country where battery powered ro-ro car ferries is the norm. All along the coastline these ferries, with hundreds of cars onboard, cross the fjords and automatically starts changing while at port. Hydroelectric power is in abundance. All ferries have been developed and built with huge subsidies.


Please keep in mind, that Norway has just 5.3 million inhabitants. That's 62% of the inhabitants of New York City or 1.6% of the inhabitants of the USA.

And Norway is a rich country, with lots of natual resources. They have a strange tax system and a lot of the economy depends on subsidies. Tesla S is not the most bought car there, because it is so good. It is because of the subsidies. They simply cut the 100% luxury car tax on electric vehicles and now the Tesla S is cheaper than a small conventional car. Never seen so many BMW i8s as in Oslo. Subsidies make people happy.

What works in Norway, doesn't work in most other parts of the world. It is relatively easy to keep a population of 5.3 million happy.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:58 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

We also have computers that are slightly more powerful than the 1950's - yet Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks were able to do the SR-71 which is pretty non-conventional and a quasi lifting body with slide rulers back in the 50's.

A prototype to prove the concept could be done very quickly to prove the concept just like Boeing has done for the T-X program. You wouldn't need the higher thrust engines until later.

Boeing has been working on this a long time and before the MAX grounding 1,000+ engineers were working on it - but it also why they will probably do NMA first at lower volumes. If Airbus goes 7W I would expect them to follow the same strategy - bigger winged/longer ranged lower volume model first while keeping A320 in production then transition to the new cross section with a smaller wing and lower range later to replace A320.

Airbus will have more than a few people working on advanced concepts even right now other than just those drawing pretty concepts.


Computers are nice but models are based on assumptions and to verify them you need a prototype or an existing frame you know the properties.

The SR-71 was never mass produced nor in anyway efficient. It was good at its job but in all other things a horrible construction like a lot of things build for the army during the cold war.

So the T-X program. In 8 Years from the prototype to IOC. As I said for the NMA that means EIS in 2030+.

Boeing will go as traditional and risk free as possible for their next program to avoid anything similar to the MAX. No business goes full risk after suffering a major blow.


All they would be doing would be an unconventional cross section - almost everything else ( nose design, systems, wing) would be 787 Based.

It's the production system where they could make big gains.


Unconventional = risk, unkonwns and additional cost and on top new production systems?!?

No way, one or the other but not both. We do not live in a dream world. This is capitalism here and to make big bucks you minimize risks and that means one new development not many. New fuselage design? Yes but then all the rest stays the same. If this means no business case possible, then there will be no new fuselage design.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3713
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:36 am

morrisond wrote:
No it wasn't me it was John Ostrower https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... eings-nma-

Apologies for attributing it to you.
Still doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, the reasons for and against still stand.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:10 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If Boeing does the tight Light 7W cross section for both with two sets of wings/gear/tails/engines then Airbus would be smart to follow and go
...with the same technology that enables the 7W to be as light as you describe and use the fundamental per seat weight advantage that the 6W that has lower weight per seat and therefore derive operating cost advantage and lower risk.

morrisond wrote:
They just won't be able to stretch the A320 enough to match the 7W in Capacity.
Meh. neither could the 77W match A380 capacity, how'd that pan out?

Fred


You have not proven (and neither have I) that 6W or 7W has an advantage/disadvantage in terms of weight. However I would suggest that within Y the delta is equivalent to the disadvantage the A320 suffers from vs the 737 which doesn't seem to hurt it that much - however in the front in domestic business class in a 7W you could go 2x2x2 on 7W vs 2x2 on 6W - 50% more capacity for only 25% more cross section - that is a big advantage - that has to be lighter. Plus you would pick up 50% more space in the belly per M of Fuselage which is a big advantage as well.

Going Ovalish does have some big advantages as you are adding comparatively little structure to pick up a lot of Capacity.

Even Keesje seems to be warming to the idea above (just kidding). He just wants Boeing to commit to 6W as he knows Airbus will go second and trump them with a tight light 7W.

Airbus is really smart to wait until Boeing commits which is what it sounds like they will do.


It is proven that 7W is at an disadvantage, it is just that some people will never accept facts. Or believe, that some Boeing magic will overcame the inherent disadvantage.
7W is a size were you need to aisles. It is the one with the worst relation between space for seats and space for aisles. No way around that. 8W is straight away better, 9W, 10W, 11W, at the same seat width, produces unused crown area, so does not give the same increase in efficiency as 8W to 7W, but you will find still an increase in efficiency. For frames with smaller capacity 9W, 10W and 11W will give a to short a frame.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:47 am

morrisond wrote:
A flatter Cross Section may have some aero advantages as well in terms of generating lift.

With terrible induced drag component...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:21 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
morrisond wrote:
A flatter Cross Section may have some aero advantages as well in terms of generating lift.

With terrible induced drag component...


Having looked at all this before nearly 20 years ago for a proper wider-than-taller fuselage - the wider body is good for added lift at take-off and landing, but doesn't do much in cruise.

Which is fine - no lift dependent drag in cruise. But all you gain from it is some reduced complexity of high lift devices. But that was a proper wide fuselage - 11AB or something like that IIRC! For a 7AB oval - since it is very slightly wider than usual, the added lift will still be a rounding error compared to that from the wings/flaps.

The take home back then was that it was structurally too complex. That won't have changed.



[and addressing a statement I seen earlier from someone - I can absolutely categorically with complete 100% certainty state the A30X studies were all 6AB]
 
JonesNL
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:34 pm

With the latest order of the A32x family it is becoming more and more apparent that the scale is sliding ever so swiftly towards the A321 of the family. A319 is almost dead because of the A220 and I am guessing the A320 will slow down considerably if an A220-500 is introduced. Even with the orders coming in for the A321 there will be quite some production space left after the slow down of the A320. On another note Airbus has mentioned that they will battle the potential 797 from the bottom and from the top. From the top is not really an option as the A330-800 is not successful enough which leaves only punching power from the bottom. The A321 is already a good fit for the market but it seems that there is potential to squeeze the future 797 even more with an additional offering.

Seeing this leads to an increasingly probability for the introduction of an A322 with ((X)LR)variants from 2500NM to 3500NM range for max 282 pax. They might even add an A220-700 of 200pax to cover the complete sub 200pax market with 1 type and an A350-2000 for the competition against the 777x and the replacement of some A380s. These 4 new planes will lead to quite an balanced portfolio for Airbus:
A220-1/3/5/7
A321/2
A330-8/9
A350-9/1/2

The A220-500 seems like a given, the 700 variant is an big question mark. A322 might only happen after the 797 is introduced. Seeing the lacking sales of the 777x without any competition the A350-2000 might never come. A completely new model seems not happening for Airbus in the next decade.

Another scenario is that they introduce an A320 replacement which will have overlap with the A220-500/700. This scenario is highly dependent of the FSA introduction. If Boeing introduces the FSA in 2021, than Airbus has to respond quite quickly.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2198
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:35 pm

mjoelnir wrote:

It is proven that 7W is at an disadvantage, it is just that some people will never accept facts. Or believe, that some Boeing magic will overcame the inherent disadvantage.
7W is a size were you need to aisles. It is the one with the worst relation between space for seats and space for aisles. No way around that. 8W is straight away better, 9W, 10W, 11W, at the same seat width, produces unused crown area, so does not give the same increase in efficiency as 8W to 7W, but you will find still an increase in efficiency. For frames with smaller capacity 9W, 10W and 11W will give a to short a frame.


Even if 6 abreast is structurally better than 7 abreast, the later may still make sense. It's 17% more economy seats/ row, but one can make the plane 25% - 30% longer. So we speak of roughly 50% more seats. 767-300 is 55m long as opposed to 44,5 m A321. Maximum seating is 351 versus 236. The B767 can take 49% more passengers. Typical seating is 261 versus 185, a 41% difference.
What to do if a city pair needs 240-280 seats in the morning?
I assume 1-2-1 business class fits better in a B767 than in an A321. Or 2-2 business and 3-3 premium economy?
There is economy of scale with turbines. And maintenance of a bigger turbine also has economy of scale. Then there is pilot shortage. Then there is gate limitation. 35m is not good enough for a 100 t+ narrowbody, 52 m is too much for a 6 abreast plane.
1168 B767 delivered as of Oct 2019. That's not bad.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:48 pm

Sokes wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

It is proven that 7W is at an disadvantage, it is just that some people will never accept facts. Or believe, that some Boeing magic will overcame the inherent disadvantage.
7W is a size were you need to aisles. It is the one with the worst relation between space for seats and space for aisles. No way around that. 8W is straight away better, 9W, 10W, 11W, at the same seat width, produces unused crown area, so does not give the same increase in efficiency as 8W to 7W, but you will find still an increase in efficiency. For frames with smaller capacity 9W, 10W and 11W will give a to short a frame.


Even if 6 abreast is structurally better than 7 abreast, the later may still make sense. It's 17% more economy seats/ row, but one can make the plane 25% - 30% longer. So we speak of roughly 50% more seats. 767-300 is 55m long as opposed to 44,5 m A321. Maximum seating is 351 versus 236. The B767 can take 49% more passengers. Typical seating is 261 versus 185, a 41% difference.
What to do if a city pair needs 240-280 seats in the morning?
I assume 1-2-1 business class fits better in a B767 than in an A321. Or 2-2 business and 3-3 premium economy?
There is economy of scale with turbines. And maintenance of a bigger turbine also has economy of scale. Then there is pilot shortage. Then there is gate limitation. 35m is not good enough for a 100 t+ narrowbody, 52 m is too much for a 6 abreast plane.
1168 B767 delivered as of Oct 2019. That's not bad.


It is not bad, but a different segment. A segment where it would compete with different aircraft. Just like the 767.

Maybe Airbus will go after something A330-800 capasity, but less capable and way lighter and efficient on shorter flights.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ewt340
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:10 pm

Sokes wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

It is proven that 7W is at an disadvantage, it is just that some people will never accept facts. Or believe, that some Boeing magic will overcame the inherent disadvantage.
7W is a size were you need to aisles. It is the one with the worst relation between space for seats and space for aisles. No way around that. 8W is straight away better, 9W, 10W, 11W, at the same seat width, produces unused crown area, so does not give the same increase in efficiency as 8W to 7W, but you will find still an increase in efficiency. For frames with smaller capacity 9W, 10W and 11W will give a to short a frame.


Even if 6 abreast is structurally better than 7 abreast, the later may still make sense. It's 17% more economy seats/ row, but one can make the plane 25% - 30% longer. So we speak of roughly 50% more seats. 767-300 is 55m long as opposed to 44,5 m A321. Maximum seating is 351 versus 236. The B767 can take 49% more passengers. Typical seating is 261 versus 185, a 41% difference.
What to do if a city pair needs 240-280 seats in the morning?
I assume 1-2-1 business class fits better in a B767 than in an A321. Or 2-2 business and 3-3 premium economy?
There is economy of scale with turbines. And maintenance of a bigger turbine also has economy of scale. Then there is pilot shortage. Then there is gate limitation. 35m is not good enough for a 100 t+ narrowbody, 52 m is too much for a 6 abreast plane.
1168 B767 delivered as of Oct 2019. That's not bad.


Rather than going for 7 abreast config, they might as well go for 8 abreast config. Better efficiency per row and LD3 capability.
The perfect example would be A300-600. They sell as well as B767-300ER.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:57 pm

JonesNL wrote:
I think the A220 is the replacement of the A320 in the long run, maybe with an A221 to replace the A321. They can stretch it several times to get the capacity and range they need. The A350 will be the bread and butter in the long range and high capacity with a shrink, stretch and ULR variants. The A330 will be phased out as it is already lacking orders. So, I thinkl the line-up will be as follows:

A220-100
A220-300
A220-500 (XLR)
A220-700 (XLR)
A221-500 (XLR)
A221-700 (XLR)
A350-800 (ULR)
A350-900 (ULR)
A350-1000 (ULR)
A350-2000 (ULR)


The A220 will disappear when a replacement for the A320 family comes along. It will be integrated into it. So you would have a, let's say, A370 which would encompass BOTH families.

I would not bet on a A350-2000 too. Much more likely an A360 (the name is very suggestive) which would be a true competitor to the B777 which airbus does NOT have. Something which could truly be called ULR (U not from Ultra but from Ultimate) or SULR

When? I do not know and COVID19 throws a further span on it.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Any leaks, ideas, or otherwise: What is Airbus' next clean-sheet aircraft?

Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:00 pm

rjsampson wrote:
...Clean-sheet 777 competitor? Already in service.


Which aircraft do you place on this category?

The A350? No way. It can fly far but not with the same capacity (passengers and cargo). They do not have a competitor on this level because the A380 was much bigger and it is at an end.

The A350 has range but not capacity AND range like a B777
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

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