I think that would be quite over-engined.

Q400 has 240kW/tonne.
Q300 has 180kW/tonne.
ATR72-600 has 156kW/tonne.

This would have 315kW/tonne.

PWC are developing an engine specifically for this market: https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 01.article

Some1Somewhere wrote:

I think that would be quite over-engined.

Q400 has 240kW/tonne.
Q300 has 180kW/tonne.
ATR72-600 has 156kW/tonne.

This would have 315kW/tonne.

PWC are developing an engine specifically for this market: https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 01.article

With the right wing - 7,000SHP seems almost perfect for a C-Series Based 100-125 seat Turboprop.

Some1Somewhere wrote:

I think that would be quite over-engined.

Q400 has 240kW/tonne.
Q300 has 180kW/tonne.
ATR72-600 has 156kW/tonne.

This would have 315kW/tonne.

PWC are developing an engine specifically for this market: https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 01.article

Yes, a state of the art 5000-7000 shp turbo prop engine would be a very interesting addition to the prop environment. It could power bigger, faster twin engined aircraft.

The TP400 is a monster engine, overpowered for almost all applications and designed to take dirt, bullits etc. so is probably over engineered for commercial use.
https://youtu.be/gGR6KplYYnU?t=250

jpiddink wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

just listen to any ATC frequency during thunderstorms, heavy traffic load, or even in normal ops. The physical manipulations of the controls can be automated depending on what level of automation the pilot chooses but the decision making is still 100 percent on the crew.

True, but why should that decision making take place on board of the airplane? If the physical manipulations can be automated (as you say) and we can establish a permanent reliable data connection to the airplane (SpaceX satellite network for instance), then 90% of the flights can be flown with automated operation. An airline could establish an operational control center for the 10% of flights that experience conditions that (still) require human decisionmaking, employing pilots without having to pay nights-away-from-home bonusses.

It is really interesting to imagine what other 'technological breakthroughs' as Airbus refers to could trigger a clean sheet design, especially from outside the classical aviation technologies.

Because communication failures occur and a perfect worldwide network for a datalink would be quite a feat, an odor comes through in the cockpit with nothing indicated on the displays, or navigational computers just quit on you (happens more than you think). Automating every landing at every airport in the world would also require a major infrastructure investment (Billions of dollars) around the world that is simply unlikely just to replace pilots.

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by physical manipulations being automated means. We can use the autopilot to do a multitude of functions but the pilots are still flying the aircraft just via the MCP rather than physically pulling the stick, instead of just putting the autopilot on and not making constant inputs.

I am also very excited to see what the future holds for Airbus

keesje wrote:

Some1Somewhere wrote:

I think that would be quite over-engined.

Q400 has 240kW/tonne.
Q300 has 180kW/tonne.
ATR72-600 has 156kW/tonne.

This would have 315kW/tonne.

PWC are developing an engine specifically for this market: https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 01.article

Yes, a state of the art 5000-7000 shp turbo prop engine would be a very interesting addition to the prop environment. It could power bigger, faster twin engined aircraft.

The TP400 is a monster engine, overpowered for almost all applications and designed to take dirt, bullits etc. so is probably over engineered for commercial use.
https://youtu.be/gGR6KplYYnU?t=250

4 x TP400 engines would be perfect for a widebody turboprop.

Keep in mind that the A400M wing is sized primarily for tactical maneuverability. A civilian widebody version of the A400M should have a larger wing (i.e. about the size of the wing on the An-22) -- wing area: 225 m2 for the A400M wing and 345 m2 for the An-22 wing. With a 53% larger wing and 36% higher shaft horse power per engine, the MTOW of the An-22 is 77.3% greater than the MTOW of the A400M (i.e. 250 metric tonnes vs. 141 metric tonnes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6f46e2Rizo

Now, 250 metric tonnes MTOW is about equal to the MTOW of the HGW A330neo version and the MTOW of the 787-9/-10.

Suggestion: Put an An-22-sized fully composite wing on the body of an A350-1000 body (fuselage) and optimise the aircraft for short and intermediate range (i.e. up to 8 hrs) -- and keep in mind that the TP400s have growth potential:

Page 21 (Sufficient growth potential)
https://www.raes-hamburg.de/media/files/2006-09-19_TP400_RAeS-HH(extract).pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22#Specifications_(An-22)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Specifications

-

Addendum

If anyone is wondering why the 60-year-old NK-12 appears to be more fuel efficient than Europrop TP400 (according to Wiki), please check out the 2nd link below.

On page 8, the Shaft power Specific Fuel Consumption (SFCp) in kg/(kW per hour) for the EPI TP400-D6 is 0.167

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/14721/why-is-the-60-year-old-nk-12-more-fuel-efficient-than-europrop-tp400

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/Off-Takes/Off-Takes_PUB_AST-CD-Version_13-04-23.pdf

It's amusing that everyone thinks that a new aircraft automatically means whole new platform. I don't see it like that. A new family of the A320 could easily be the next project. Or maybe the project simply involves optimizing production.

The majority of future Airbus and Boeing products are boring. Single deck, twin engines. Narrowbodies are 737 and 320, widebodies are 787 and 350.

keesje wrote:

Some1Somewhere wrote:

I think that would be quite over-engined.

Q400 has 240kW/tonne.
Q300 has 180kW/tonne.
ATR72-600 has 156kW/tonne.

This would have 315kW/tonne.

PWC are developing an engine specifically for this market: https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 01.article

Yes, a state of the art 5000-7000 shp turbo prop engine would be a very interesting addition to the prop environment. It could power bigger, faster twin engined aircraft.

The TP400 is a monster engine, overpowered for almost all applications and designed to take dirt, bullits etc. so is probably over engineered for commercial use.
https://youtu.be/gGR6KplYYnU?t=250

Keesje - would this engine and 7,000HP work with a Cseries Nose and Cross section?

What kind of Capacity/range could you get out of it?

I would have to guess you could put a very efficient really thin 36m wing on top that would look glider like?

It probably wouldn't need to be able to use Super Short runways at MTOW - 5-6,000' should be fine.

Dash 8-400 speeds would seem to be enough as well as most routes would be 2-2.5 hours Maximum.

How efficient would it be?

Time for a new illustration?

Powerfull props need a lot of space, requiring a position high above the ground. High wings are more practical, except if the fuselage is long. Then aoa is limited at take-off.

Also a higher cross section (belly space) becomes complicated. And the landing gear gets long, or hard to stow.

A lower wing is more practicle but the prop still needs ground clearance, so on top off a gull wing could be an option. Noise remains a challenge..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/349 ... ted-public

Sokes wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

60-80 seat RJ....1500nm max range

Fred

Good idea.

Taxi645 wrote:

Any (natural, sfc improvement combined) tech/capabilty evolution on the A320 will improve it's positioning in relation to the MoM and the A220. Any (natural/sfc improvement combined) tech/capability evolution on the A330 however will move it even further away from an underserved part of the market and closer to the segment that the current (already too close) A350 is serving.

Therefore I find it more likely that the A320 will get another big update (if it is estimated to be able to compete sufficiently with an all new Boeing NB), where as the A330 will be replaced entirely by a much much lighter and tighter 8-abreast with a range reset closer to MoM and further away from the A350

I first agreed with your post. Later I got doubts.
I wonder if the point of any widebody is cargo capability. If one doesn't want cargo a new wing on an A321 is good. If one has cargo one also desires range.
I guess that's why there is such a huge MTOW gap between the heaviest narrowbodies and lightest widebodies.

ewt340 wrote:

A370 concept is stupid. Sorry, but:
...
6. There is a big reason to why Boeing hasn't launch their B797 program yet. And you know exactly why.

Are you refering to missing engines or to seven abreast having too much (aisle area and wetted area) / seat?
I always wonder how Keesje comes up with his drawings. Makes me feel stupid.


Maybe at today's fuel prices there is just no business case for any new cleansheet. I like the B797 idea. But even once engines become available I'm not sure if it's worth it. The B767 was 7 abreast because engines at a time were weak and any bigger plane wouldn't have had the desired range. The plane was designed around the engine, not the engine designed for the plane. I believe a new wing for the A321 is what is most needed. Everything else I doubt.

What about a six abreast 35 m wing turboprop?
A319 Neo OEW: 42,6 t
A220-300 OEW: 37,1 t
Q400 ....... OEW: 17,8 t
ATR-72 .... OEW: 13,5 t

No, I'm referring to the fact that the lower end of MoM are already being dominated by A321LR/XLR. And the largest MoM are still being operated by B767-300ER or being replaced by Low-density High-Premium B787-8 or A330-200.

Boeing NMA's range is around 5,000nmi and 4,500nmi. A321XLR max range is 4,700nmi. You see, they don't actually offer much range differences between them.

Again, commonality between aircraft type is a big factor for most Airlines, especially the one that operate small number of fleet. A321XLR and B787-8 have commonality in their favour. Boeing NMA is not.

Once the new engines comes around, Airbus would also have their hands on it. It's a 2 way street.

And remember when Boeing considering to use metal fuselage instead of composite materials because it would be cheaper to produced? Yeah, this is the kiss of death right here.

exFWAOONW wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

A370 concept is stupid. Sorry, but:

1. Airlines would prefer A322neo instead of A370. Training costs, transition costs, maintenance costs, additional operational costs would make A370 obsolete.
2. Commonality with A320neo and A321neo is a big selling point for Airlines.
3. Airbus could replace A320neo with stretched A220. This would forced airbus to developed new A320neo's family line up. Most likely A322 rather than A370. (They wouldn't kill the successful A321neo for A370)
4. Airbus would spend less money developing A322 than a brand new clean sheet A370.
5. Narrow aisle is the key to efficiency. While I do love the idea of wide aisle, the fact of the matter is that aisle doesn't generate revenue.
6. There is a big reason to why Boeing hasn't launch their B797 program yet. And you know exactly why.

It does generate revenue in a backhanded way. No aircraft generates revenue sitting in the gate waiting for 250 people to schlep on/off the aircraft. It makes money in the air hauling the. If the wide aisle saves time at the gate, an aircraft could conceivably fly another segment each day generating extra revenue.

An even more subtle way is pax preference in booking flights that allow them to head for the lav during a meal/drink service. Could an airline charge a slight premium on flights with this feature? I know I would go out of my way for that on a longer flight, the uninformed public, not so much. A small bump in revenue is still better than no bump, all other things being equal.

Actually it's a double-edge sword.

A single aisle = More boarding time + More efficiency in flight.
Double Aisle = Less boarding time + Less efficiency in flight.

So single aisle aircraft are being used for longer and longer flights. Which mean that they would spent more time on air rather than on land. While the boarding time is slower, they would make up more savings on the air.

Double aisle aircraft spent less time on the ground, but they can't spent too much time on air otherwise it would be less efficient because of the dead weight of the extra aisle.
1 aisle for 6 seats vs 2 aisle for 7 seats.

So, on longer flights which these MoM aircraft are being used, A single aisle jet are actually the winner.
On a short domestic flights, NMA are actually better.

But only on this segment alone.

ABpositive wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Select by talent not by gender please.

Sex, actually. Gender is for language, sex is people. Anyway, I agree with your statement 100%.

Talent is subjective, so it's in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the selection panels need to be more balanced to provide a more equitable view of the world.

I don’t want to live in a world where my son can work for years to earn a valued position at a company, only to be denied it because he didn’t have the right genitals. What possible perspective on aircraft development is a man not able to provide? I would love to see an aircraft with a female lead designer, it would be a gigantic showcase of gender equality, but she should be selected because of her skills, not her sex.

speedbird52 wrote:

ABpositive wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

Sex, actually. Gender is for language, sex is people. Anyway, I agree with your statement 100%.

Talent is subjective, so it's in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the selection panels need to be more balanced to provide a more equitable view of the world.

I don’t want to live in a world where my son can work for years to earn a valued position at a company, only to be denied it because he didn’t have the right genitals. What possible perspective on aircraft development is a man not able to provide? I would love to see an aircraft with a female lead designer, it would be a gigantic showcase of gender equality, but she should be selected because of her skills, not her sex.

Sir, off topic.

But your daughter already lived in a world where her genitals prevents her from being promoted or treated equally in some instances.

Difficult to guess what a new Airbus narrowbody might be...assuming it's not a A225 of course, 2030 looks to be too far out for that...

Perhaps a folding wintgtip narrowbody or some measure of underside laminar flow...can't see where a 2030-horizon engine would come from though...would have to be a totally new design in that case...


Faro

I wouldn’t mind something in the 200-250 seat class that could load a standard PMA pallet sideways (would require a very long cargo door), ie a cargo hold 96” wide with 5 hrs range with 40 tonnes payload.

Airbus should develop a new turboprop together with ATR.

ewt340 wrote:

A370 concept is stupid. Sorry, but:

1. Airlines would prefer A322neo instead of A370. Training costs, transition costs, maintenance costs, additional operational costs would make A370 obsolete.
2. Commonality with A320neo and A321neo is a big selling point for Airlines.
3. Airbus could replace A320neo with stretched A220. This would forced airbus to developed new A320neo's family line up. Most likely A322 rather than A370. (They wouldn't kill the successful A321neo for A370)
4. Airbus would spend less money developing A322 than a brand new clean sheet A370.
5. Narrow aisle is the key to efficiency. While I do love the idea of wide aisle, the fact of the matter is that aisle doesn't generate revenue.
6. There is a big reason to why Boeing hasn't launch their B797 program yet. And you know exactly why.

I think it boils down to this - can Airbus create more efficient systems than the 1987 assemblies currently found on all A32X aircraft.

I don't see the technology ready, especially with Gen X and Y engineers running Airbus.

Same goes with the 31 year old wing of the -200.

Strato2 wrote:

Airbus should develop a new turboprop together with ATR.

The ATR is 50% Airbus. Final assembly is done in Toulouse. The joint venture partner is Leonardo (50%).

A clean-sheet turboprop might be a new project for Airbus and Leonardo. A smaller variant of a clean-sheet turboprop might also be fully electric (battery powered).

reidar76 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Airbus should develop a new turboprop together with ATR.

The ATR is 50% Airbus. Final assembly is done in Toulouse. The joint venture partner is Leonardo (50%).

A clean-sheet turboprop might be a new project for Airbus and Leonardo. A smaller variant of a clean-sheet turboprop might also be fully electric (battery powered).

I think the succesful ATR has some growth potential left. A new engine, wing mods, more speed, additional seats, better door confiiguration. It probably can be done for a fraction of the investment of a new aircraft. And quicker and lower risk. Competitive pressure is low at this stage.

reidar76 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Airbus should develop a new turboprop together with ATR.

The ATR is 50% Airbus. Final assembly is done in Toulouse. The joint venture partner is Leonardo (50%).

A clean-sheet turboprop might be a new project for Airbus and Leonardo. A smaller variant of a clean-sheet turboprop might also be fully electric (battery powered).

They could probably use ATR42/ATR 72 for their Electric/Hybrid program after 2030 onwards.

1989worstyear wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

A370 concept is stupid. Sorry, but:

1. Airlines would prefer A322neo instead of A370. Training costs, transition costs, maintenance costs, additional operational costs would make A370 obsolete.
2. Commonality with A320neo and A321neo is a big selling point for Airlines.
3. Airbus could replace A320neo with stretched A220. This would forced airbus to developed new A320neo's family line up. Most likely A322 rather than A370. (They wouldn't kill the successful A321neo for A370)
4. Airbus would spend less money developing A322 than a brand new clean sheet A370.
5. Narrow aisle is the key to efficiency. While I do love the idea of wide aisle, the fact of the matter is that aisle doesn't generate revenue.
6. There is a big reason to why Boeing hasn't launch their B797 program yet. And you know exactly why.

I think it boils down to this - can Airbus create more efficient systems than the 1987 assemblies currently found on all A32X aircraft.

I don't see the technology ready, especially with Gen X and Y engineers running Airbus.

Same goes with the 31 year old wing of the -200.

Not really, it boils down to this:
- Would airbus make more money developing stretched A220-500?
OR
- Would airbus make more money by scrapping A220-500 and focusing on a clean sheet replacement for A320neo/A321neo?

But it seems to me that it would depends on Boeing's decision on MAX too. A clean sheet design from Boeing would amplified the process for Airbus to replace the NEOs.

ewt340 wrote:

Not really, it boils down to this:
- Would airbus make more money developing stretched A220-500?
OR
- Would airbus make more money by scrapping A220-500 and focusing on a clean sheet replacement for A320neo/A321neo?

That's not necessarily a binary choice. It's possible that Airbus could make the most money by doing both.

1989worstyear wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

A370 concept is stupid. Sorry, but:

1. Airlines would prefer A322neo instead of A370. Training costs, transition costs, maintenance costs, additional operational costs would make A370 obsolete.
2. Commonality with A320neo and A321neo is a big selling point for Airlines.
3. Airbus could replace A320neo with stretched A220. This would forced airbus to developed new A320neo's family line up. Most likely A322 rather than A370. (They wouldn't kill the successful A321neo for A370)
4. Airbus would spend less money developing A322 than a brand new clean sheet A370.
5. Narrow aisle is the key to efficiency. While I do love the idea of wide aisle, the fact of the matter is that aisle doesn't generate revenue.
6. There is a big reason to why Boeing hasn't launch their B797 program yet. And you know exactly why.

I think it boils down to this - can Airbus create more efficient systems than the 1987 assemblies currently found on all A32X aircraft.

I don't see the technology ready, especially with Gen X and Y engineers running Airbus.

Same goes with the 31 year old wing of the -200.

Regarding the A320 family, the point is, do you talk about systems, or fuselage and wings? In regard to systems, Airbus has the possibility to exchange systems on the current design. Less hydraulics, more electrics, newer computers. I would call the new engines an exchange of systems.

Regarding systems, Embraer talked that just moving the E2 jets to FBW brings 2% fuel burn reduction.

Regarding the A320 fuselage, what would a new fuselage bring, 1%, 2% surly not more. A new wing CFRP wing box would bring down the weight and with the new design, production cost.
I assume a new wing could bring 3 to 5 % fuel reduction, apart from perhaps being lighter, carrying more fuel and bringing more lift. I could imaging two new wings, one A320, A321 light sized and one for the A321XLR, A322.

IMO it will be possible to add new features to the A320, keeping the base fuselage, making it nearly impossible to build a more advanced clean sheet frame that beats it out by more than 2 or 3%.

ewt340 wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Airbus should develop a new turboprop together with ATR.

The ATR is 50% Airbus. Final assembly is done in Toulouse. The joint venture partner is Leonardo (50%).

A clean-sheet turboprop might be a new project for Airbus and Leonardo. A smaller variant of a clean-sheet turboprop might also be fully electric (battery powered).

They could probably use ATR42/ATR 72 for their Electric/Hybrid program after 2030 onwards.

I'm afraid that could only work with powerpoint / photoshop. E.g. me pasting a power socket in some handy spot.

Flying an ATR over 800NM requires a lot of energy, you have to stow that somehow. Storage density by batteries isn't anywhere close to what is needed..



It's for greendreamers that dropped physics when they were 15 years old and are (rightfully) worried about the environment.

And for the people who do understand realities but know they will get support / make a lot of money by joining the crowds promoting "promising" solutions.

Sad but truth..

keesje wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

The ATR is 50% Airbus. Final assembly is done in Toulouse. The joint venture partner is Leonardo (50%).

A clean-sheet turboprop might be a new project for Airbus and Leonardo. A smaller variant of a clean-sheet turboprop might also be fully electric (battery powered).

They could probably use ATR42/ATR 72 for their Electric/Hybrid program after 2030 onwards.

I'm afraid that could only work with powerpoint / photoshop. E.g. me pasting a power socket in some handy spot.

Flying an ATR over 800NM requires a lot of energy, you have to stow that somehow. Storage density by batteries isn't anywhere close to what is needed..



It's for greendreamers that dropped physics when they were 15 years old and are (rightfully) worried about the environment.

And for the people who do understand realities but know they will get support / make a lot of money by joining the crowds promoting "promising" solutions.

Sad but truth..

To add to that, the most optimal forecast for 2030 foresees an Solid State battery with 1.26 MJ/kg in gravimetric density and an volumetric density of 3.6MJ/kg. Electric is not a decade away, but at least multiple decades away for large(50+) Civilian airlines.

JonesNL wrote:

To add to that, the most optimal forecast for 2030 foresees an Solid State battery with 1.26 MJ/kg in gravimetric density and an volumetric density of 3.6MJ/kg. Electric is not a decade away, but at least multiple decades away for large(50+) Civilian airlines.

Pretty sure hybrid is the near term goal.

Airbus E-Fan X gives an idea of how it will work.

A single gas turbine generator in the tail will run multiple electric motor/props/fans in the wings. A big battery pack will be used for climbing and to provide enough engine power to allow for a single gas turbine to be allowed.

The hybrid electric design will have excellent short runway performance with multiple fans blowing over the wings. Extremely low noise will also allow curfews to be relaxed opening up high profit routes.

RJMAZ wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

To add to that, the most optimal forecast for 2030 foresees an Solid State battery with 1.26 MJ/kg in gravimetric density and an volumetric density of 3.6MJ/kg. Electric is not a decade away, but at least multiple decades away for large(50+) Civilian airlines.

Pretty sure hybrid is the near term goal.

Airbus E-Fan X gives an idea of how it will work.

A single gas turbine generator in the tail will run multiple electric motor/props/fans in the wings. A big battery pack will be used for climbing and to provide enough engine power to allow for a single gas turbine to be allowed.

The hybrid electric design will have excellent short runway performance with multiple fans blowing over the wings. Extremely low noise will also allow curfews to be relaxed opening up high profit routes.

Take-off and climbing is one third of the total fuel consumption on the average 737 flight. On an 1000km flight with a total fuel burn of 3000kg on an 166 pax 737M8 this would mean about 1000kg, which you would need to multiply by 20-30 in the most optimal situation and developments in 2030. Good luck with getting that weight in the air...

What are the chances of seeing solar panels on the wing to generate some in-flight charging? Probably not effiecent enough for thrust but how about for powering the cabin?

JonesNL wrote:

Take-off and climbing is one third of the total fuel consumption on the average 737 flight. On an 1000km flight with a total fuel burn of 3000kg on an 166 pax 737M8 this would mean about 1000kg, which you would need to multiply by 20-30 in the most optimal situation and developments in 2030. Good luck with getting that weight in the air...

You've clearly not put a lot of thought into this.

The plans I have seen have the gas turbine sized to generate enough power for 60-70% of the electric motors max thrust.

So that 1000kg of fuel burnt during the climb would still be 700-800kg. Fuel saved would be 200-300kg, multiplied by 20 means the battery would only be 4000-5000kg.

The best turbofan bypass ratios are reaching 12:1. With the power core getting smaller with the fan and the fans getting bigger to give more bypass air. With the hybrid design you effectively have a 30-40:1 bypass ratio. The gas turbine in the tail become the power core and the electric motors become the bypass air.

Moving more air but at a slower speed increases efficiency significantly. The hybrid designs extremely high bypass ratio will allow the fuel burn per mile during cruise to easily be two thirds of turbofan powered of similar capacity. This more than makes up for the extra battery weight carried.

reidar76 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Airbus should develop a new turboprop together with ATR.

The ATR is 50% Airbus. Final assembly is done in Toulouse. The joint venture partner is Leonardo (50%).

A clean-sheet turboprop might be a new project for Airbus and Leonardo. A smaller variant of a clean-sheet turboprop might also be fully electric (battery powered).

Thanks for clarification. Apparently turboprops have been neglected to such an extent (in favor of jets) that there are for two technological leaps to be made because most of the designs flying today are 30 years old. Even without any exotic hybrid engines there are big gains to be made.

RJMAZ wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Take-off and climbing is one third of the total fuel consumption on the average 737 flight. On an 1000km flight with a total fuel burn of 3000kg on an 166 pax 737M8 this would mean about 1000kg, which you would need to multiply by 20-30 in the most optimal situation and developments in 2030. Good luck with getting that weight in the air...

You've clearly not put a lot of thought into this.

The plans I have seen have the gas turbine sized to generate enough power for 60-70% of the electric motors max thrust.

So that 1000kg of fuel burnt during the climb would still be 700-800kg. Fuel saved would be 200-300kg, multiplied by 20 means the battery would only be 4000-5000kg.

The best turbofan bypass ratios are reaching 12:1. With the power core getting smaller with the fan and the fans getting bigger to give more bypass air. With the hybrid design you effectively have a 30-40:1 bypass ratio. The gas turbine in the tail become the power core and the electric motors become the bypass air.

Moving more air but at a slower speed increases efficiency significantly. The hybrid designs extremely high bypass ratio will allow the fuel burn per mile during cruise to easily be two thirds of turbofan powered of similar capacity. This more than makes up for the extra battery weight carried.

You might be right, but you use the most optimistic numbers. Lets start all over: 1.26 MJ/kg in 2030 in the best case. Jetfuel stands at 43 MJ/kg. Which puts us at 34 times. So my earlier comment of 20-30 was too low. 34 x 200kg (your most optimistic number) is 6800kg. That is 15,08% of extra weight for an 737-8 Max. Good luck with carrying 15% extra weight and making up in fuel savings.

flash330 wrote:

What are the chances of seeing solar panels on the wing to generate some in-flight charging? Probably not effiecent enough for thrust but how about for powering the cabin?

Not even close enough to power engines. I doubt it would even power electrical systems in the plane.

ewt340 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

ABpositive wrote:

Talent is subjective, so it's in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the selection panels need to be more balanced to provide a more equitable view of the world.

I don’t want to live in a world where my son can work for years to earn a valued position at a company, only to be denied it because he didn’t have the right genitals. What possible perspective on aircraft development is a man not able to provide? I would love to see an aircraft with a female lead designer, it would be a gigantic showcase of gender equality, but she should be selected because of her skills, not her sex.

Sir, off topic.

But your daughter already lived in a world where her genitals prevents her from being promoted or treated equally in some instances.

Indeed, how about we create a world where my children’s skills, rather than their genitals, determine their reward? I was absolutely not off topic.

Elementalism wrote:

flash330 wrote:

What are the chances of seeing solar panels on the wing to generate some in-flight charging? Probably not effiecent enough for thrust but how about for powering the cabin?

Not even close enough to power engines. I doubt it would even power electrical systems in the plane.

If my memory serves me right there is about 1.3kwm^-2 of sunlights falling on the planet. So if you could cover the wings in solar panels on an a320 then you’d reasonably get about 100m^2. At 30% efficiency the. Your looking at midday direct sunlight giving you about 39kw. I think a cfm56 is at about 36Mw total power or 1000 times the power of the solar panels.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JonesNL wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Take-off and climbing is one third of the total fuel consumption on the average 737 flight. On an 1000km flight with a total fuel burn of 3000kg on an 166 pax 737M8 this would mean about 1000kg, which you would need to multiply by 20-30 in the most optimal situation and developments in 2030. Good luck with getting that weight in the air...

You've clearly not put a lot of thought into this.

The plans I have seen have the gas turbine sized to generate enough power for 60-70% of the electric motors max thrust.

So that 1000kg of fuel burnt during the climb would still be 700-800kg. Fuel saved would be 200-300kg, multiplied by 20 means the battery would only be 4000-5000kg.

The best turbofan bypass ratios are reaching 12:1. With the power core getting smaller with the fan and the fans getting bigger to give more bypass air. With the hybrid design you effectively have a 30-40:1 bypass ratio. The gas turbine in the tail become the power core and the electric motors become the bypass air.

Moving more air but at a slower speed increases efficiency significantly. The hybrid designs extremely high bypass ratio will allow the fuel burn per mile during cruise to easily be two thirds of turbofan powered of similar capacity. This more than makes up for the extra battery weight carried.

You might be right, but you use the most optimistic numbers. Lets start all over: 1.26 MJ/kg in 2030 in the best case. Jetfuel stands at 43 MJ/kg. Which puts us at 34 times. So my earlier comment of 20-30 was too low. 34 x 200kg (your most optimistic number) is 6800kg. That is 15,08% of extra weight for an 737-8 Max. Good luck with carrying 15% extra weight and making up in fuel savings.

Let us not forget the safety problems with the batteries. Hence I see electric powered passenger planes a no-go. Ships cruise with batteries long before commercial planes fly electrically.

To be green, next generation biofuels is the way to go. Even synthetic fuel (made by extra capacity of wind or nuclear power or) is better than battery powered plane.

JonesNL wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Take-off and climbing is one third of the total fuel consumption on the average 737 flight. On an 1000km flight with a total fuel burn of 3000kg on an 166 pax 737M8 this would mean about 1000kg, which you would need to multiply by 20-30 in the most optimal situation and developments in 2030. Good luck with getting that weight in the air...

You've clearly not put a lot of thought into this.

The plans I have seen have the gas turbine sized to generate enough power for 60-70% of the electric motors max thrust.

So that 1000kg of fuel burnt during the climb would still be 700-800kg. Fuel saved would be 200-300kg, multiplied by 20 means the battery would only be 4000-5000kg.

The best turbofan bypass ratios are reaching 12:1. With the power core getting smaller with the fan and the fans getting bigger to give more bypass air. With the hybrid design you effectively have a 30-40:1 bypass ratio. The gas turbine in the tail become the power core and the electric motors become the bypass air.

Moving more air but at a slower speed increases efficiency significantly. The hybrid designs extremely high bypass ratio will allow the fuel burn per mile during cruise to easily be two thirds of turbofan powered of similar capacity. This more than makes up for the extra battery weight carried.

You might be right, but you use the most optimistic numbers. Lets start all over: 1.26 MJ/kg in 2030 in the best case. Jetfuel stands at 43 MJ/kg. Which puts us at 34 times. So my earlier comment of 20-30 was too low. 34 x 200kg (your most optimistic number) is 6800kg. That is 15,08% of extra weight for an 737-8 Max. Good luck with carrying 15% extra weight and making up in fuel savings.

I'm pretty sure when hybrid comes around we wouldn't start with the likes of MAX8. Again, ATR42 seems the most logical choice for it's start base. And while we would love to see hybrid on a plane the size of MAX8. It would be unrealistic in near future.

speedbird52 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

I don’t want to live in a world where my son can work for years to earn a valued position at a company, only to be denied it because he didn’t have the right genitals. What possible perspective on aircraft development is a man not able to provide? I would love to see an aircraft with a female lead designer, it would be a gigantic showcase of gender equality, but she should be selected because of her skills, not her sex.

Sir, off topic.

But your daughter already lived in a world where her genitals prevents her from being promoted or treated equally in some instances.

Indeed, how about we create a world where my children’s skills, rather than their genitals, determine their reward? I was absolutely not off topic.

Sadly, billions of people would love too see your dream crushed. And yes, this is off topic.

flipdewaf wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

flash330 wrote:

What are the chances of seeing solar panels on the wing to generate some in-flight charging? Probably not effiecent enough for thrust but how about for powering the cabin?

Not even close enough to power engines. I doubt it would even power electrical systems in the plane.

If my memory serves me right there is about 1.3kwm^-2 of sunlights falling on the planet. So if you could cover the wings in solar panels on an a320 then you’d reasonably get about 100m^2. At 30% efficiency the. Your looking at midday direct sunlight giving you about 39kw. I think a cfm56 is at about 36Mw total power or 1000 times the power of the solar panels.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The plane would get additional weight, complexity and maintenance for an unstable output of additional power (because of season, location and time of day).
IMO it doesn't sounds as if it's worth the trade-off.

What kind of work is being done with 'super' capacitors? I think currently (bad pun) it is all pretty theoretical.

WesternDC6B wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Select by talent not by gender please.

Sex, actually. Gender is for language, sex is people. Anyway, I agree with your statement 100%.

Sorry it's wrong.


gender noun [C/U] (SEX)

the male or female sex, or the state of being either male or female:
[ U ] Discrimination on the basis of gender is not allowed.

ewt340 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Sir, off topic.

But your daughter already lived in a world where her genitals prevents her from being promoted or treated equally in some instances.

Indeed, how about we create a world where my children’s skills, rather than their genitals, determine their reward? I was absolutely not off topic.

Sadly, billions of people would love too see your dream crushed. And yes, this is off topic.

You are the one who brought up gender.

speedbird52 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Indeed, how about we create a world where my children’s skills, rather than their genitals, determine their reward? I was absolutely not off topic.

Sadly, billions of people would love too see your dream crushed. And yes, this is off topic.

You are the one who brought up gender.

Sir, please stop. This is off topic. Don't get this thread locked up.

ewt340 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Sadly, billions of people would love too see your dream crushed. And yes, this is off topic.

You are the one who brought up gender.

Sir, please stop. This is off topic. Don't get this thread locked up.

Again, YOU are the one who brought up this “off topic” subject. The topic won’t get locked, if mods deem it off topic they will delete the post. Sounds to me that you just don’t like people disagreeing with you. Either that, or you were hoping to flamebait and are disappointed that I responded civilly.

RJMAZ wrote:

Pretty sure hybrid is the near term goal.

Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury said in November at a press event in Hamburg that:
-Green flying ist the top priority for Airbus
-Airbus will develop a low emission aircraft until 2035
-The road to achieve this is highly complex
-He mentioned that a hybrid-electric plane is one of the options, but also hydrogen and clima friendly fuels are possible

Source (in German): https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/ ... -99-933040

I expect Airbus will launch a lightweight A330 replacement and keep the A330 crosssection. It will be slightly smaller in size as the current A330NEO sits very close to the A350. It will have a very high aspect ratio carbon wing.

Appearance wise you would start with the A310 with its smaller wing size and stretch the fuselage to A300 fuselage length. Large wing tips are added to increase the aspect ratio. The wing will be a full clean sheet using the latest aero tech and be carbon with lower wing sweep. It is now possible to get mach 0.85 cruising speed with 5 degrees lower wing sweep compared to 20 years ago. Less wing sweep increases lift and reduces weight.

I expect the name will surely be the A360 as Airbus has done a 180 degree turn back to the A300 class and then another 180 to update the design. So they've done a 360. Engines they could probably used uprated versions proposed for the 797.

The landing gear will be like A300 and A310 where it is smaller and lighter with less aerodynamic drag.



I expect two fuselage lengths, the longest length version would be the same length as the current A330-200/800. The shorter length version will be just under the A300 length.

A360-800
OEW: 90t
MTOW: 175t
Wingspan: 48m
Cabin area: 195m2 5% less than A300
Length: 52m
Brochure range: 5000nm

A360-900
OEW: 95t
MTOW: 175t
Wingspan: 48m
Cabin size: 230m2 same as A330-200
Length: 58m
Brochure range: 4000nm

Performance wise the A360-900 vs A330-800 they both have the same cabin size. On a 4000nm flight the A360 would take off at 175t the A330 would take off at 215t. This is mostly due to the 30t empty weight difference. The OEW difference is due to the much smaller and lighter wing, wingbox, engines and landing gear. Fuel burn would be more than 10% better per seat due to the 19% lower takeoff weight. The reason it wouldn't burn 19% less fuel is because the A360 would have a wose lift to drag ratio compared to the A330NEO. This is because it would be underwinged to significantly reduce the empty weight which is the best way to boost short haul efficiency. A design compromise.

The A350 would then be given plenty of market space to ramp up production. The A360 family would then sit perfectly inbetween the A321 and A350-900 in range.

The A360 will also sit slightly above the proposed Boeing 797 in size. Asian LCC could fit 9ab into the A360 and have excellent economics to compete with the higher tech full carbon 797.

Airbus can then work their usual magic to increase the MTOW over time putting range close to the range of the original A330

RJMAZ wrote:

I expect Airbus will launch a lightweight A330 replacement and keep the A330 crosssection. It will be slightly smaller in size as the current A330NEO sits very close to the A350. It will have a very high aspect ratio carbon wing.

Appearance wise you would start with the A310 with its smaller wing size and stretch the fuselage to A300 fuselage length. Large wing tips are added to increase the aspect ratio. The wing will be a full clean sheet using the latest aero tech and be carbon with lower wing sweep. It is now possible to get mach 0.85 cruising speed with 5 degrees lower wing sweep compared to 20 years ago. Less wing sweep increases lift and reduces weight.

I expect the name will surely be the A360 as Airbus has done a 180 degree turn back to the A300 class and then another 180 to update the design. So they've done a 360. Engines they could probably used uprated versions proposed for the 797.

The landing gear will be like A300 and A310 where it is smaller and lighter with less aerodynamic drag.



I expect two fuselage lengths, the longest length version would be the same length as the current A330-200/800. The shorter length version will be just under the A300 length.

A360-800
OEW: 90t
MTOW: 175t
Wingspan: 48m
Cabin area: 195m2 5% less than A300
Length: 52m
Brochure range: 5000nm

A360-900
OEW: 95t
MTOW: 175t
Wingspan: 48m
Cabin size: 230m2 same as A330-200
Length: 58m
Brochure range: 4000nm

Performance wise the A360-900 vs A330-800 they both have the same cabin size. On a 4000nm flight the A360 would take off at 175t the A330 would take off at 215t. This is mostly due to the 30t empty weight difference. The OEW difference is due to the much smaller and lighter wing, wingbox, engines and landing gear. Fuel burn would be more than 10% better per seat due to the 19% lower takeoff weight. The reason it wouldn't burn 19% less fuel is because the A360 would have a wose lift to drag ratio compared to the A330NEO. This is because it would be underwinged to significantly reduce the empty weight which is the best way to boost short haul efficiency. A design compromise.

The A350 would then be given plenty of market space to ramp up production. The A360 family would then sit perfectly inbetween the A321 and A350-900 in range.

The A360 will also sit slightly above the proposed Boeing 797 in size. Asian LCC could fit 9ab into the A360 and have excellent economics to compete with the higher tech full carbon 797.

Airbus can then work their usual magic to increase the MTOW over time putting range close to the range of the original A330

We have discussed such a light A300/A330 many times over the last decade. Engine availability seems an issue and unfortunately I have not seen Airbus discussing this with potential customers.



Contrary, Airbus decided to put more capasity, stretched wings, bigger engines, more range to the A330. Replacing the A350-800.

It seems everybody agrees there a significant market segment left open by 757, 767, A300, A310. It will be interesting to see how it gets filled in the next decade. I wouldn't be surprized if w'll see some bigger narrowbodies.

What market?

The few remaining PAX 757s will become A321s, there are next to no non-ER 767s left and the ERs can be replaced by either A330 or 787s and the last few A300/A310 are either up for replacement by A321 or not worth the effort.

seahawk wrote:

What market?

The few remaining PAX 757s will become A321s, there are next to no non-ER 767s left and the ERs can be replaced by either A330 or 787s and the last few A300/A310 are either up for replacement by A321 or not worth the effort.

Looking at current fleet types and their replacements makes little sense. The airlines don't have choice. The closest thing, A321, sells wildly. If you want to replace a 767 or A300, you either move up or down, because you have to. A 767 sized aircraft with 787/NEO technology / efficiency would sell in good numbers, but doesn exist.

A new four engines aircraft.

They should try again.

But when they had a choice they did no longer choose the planes mentioned. In the most simple version an airline can not work without a short and medium route plane family and you need a long haul plane family that covers your destinations.

At ~10 hours flight time you reach the point where even with optimized scheduling one frame is not enough to cover a daily routes. So you need to find a shorter route for the second frame to keep it earning money and not standing on the ground. Anything from 4-8 hours could work depending on the length of the flight. So the find a mission for the second frame, you want to put it on some medium length routes that can fill it.

Those are the routes a MoM would also aim to fly. The difference is that you need the long haul frames, but you do not need the MoM. It gets worse when you have a single aisle plane that could cover a large amount of those medium routes as well, but also works on normal shorter routes as well.