Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
a380900
Topic Author
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:26 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:44 am

I think Airbus needs a bigger twin than the A350 to replace the A340-600 and fill the gap with the A380.

Is it possible to make a twin whose large capacity model would seat 450 people? It means a much bigger twin than the 777 for instance.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:05 am

I would expect that both manufacturers are looking hard in that direction. But, not for the first time in aviation history, I fancy that engine power (or the lack of it) is the controlling factor.

Given their current lead in ETOPS designs, I'd have thought that Boeing would already have been going for that option, instead of the 747ADV, if engines with the right power-weight ratio even looked like becoming available within a reasonable timescale.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9314
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:27 am

>> Is it possible to make a twin whose large capacity model would seat 450 people? It means a much bigger twin than the 777 for instance.

Yes, it's definitly possible. However, given the current focus of Airbus product development, I seriously doubt it will happen before 2020. Such an aircraft would be a 100% new platform and easily exceed $10 billion dollars.

>> Given their current lead in ETOPS designs, I'd have thought that Boeing would already have been going for that option, instead of the 747ADV

Like I said, it's all about development cost. The 747-Adv will be very cheap, probably no more than $2 billion dollars to incorperate new 787-like engines, wingtip modification, stretch, etc.

Developing an all-new platform would be maybe five to six times that much money. The Adv is probably the pinnicle of the 747 program, so perhaps when it comes time to fully replace the 747 line, Boeing will consider an even larger twin.

>> if engines with the right power-weight ratio even looked like becoming available within a reasonable timescale.

It's certainly possible even larger engines will be available in time. To power a 450-seat aircraft, an engine of about 160,000 lbf is needed. Given the work GE does in powerplant and naval turbines, this shouldn't be out of reach of any project.
 
co7772wuh
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:13 am

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:42 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
It's certainly possible even larger engines will be available in time. To power a 450-seat aircraft, an engine of about 160,000 lbf is needed. Given the work GE does in powerplant and naval turbines, this shouldn't be out of reach of any project.

If Boeing were to go forward with a mega twin , say before 2020 . Would that in any way threaten the a380 ?

Could that a/c do to the a380 what the 777 did to the 747-400 ?
 
vlada
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:25 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:43 am

I'm really interested in this issue: what would be the key strongpoints for building a 450+ seat twin instead of a three- or four-pot a/c?
Is there a theoretical limitation to what would be a max. feasible size for a twin-engine aircraft, in terms of weight/size/thrust/payload/fuelburn/... ratios?

Thanks.

Regards,
Vlada
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:57 am

Until ETOPS ranges greatly exceed the current max. of 240 minutes, there will still be a need for 3 engine and 4 engine airplanes. There are many airlines in South America who cannot use even a B-777 on some routes. They exceed the max 208-240 minute diversion single engine time.
 
N60659
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:00 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Developing an all-new platform would be maybe five to six times that much money. The Adv is probably the pinnicle of the 747 program, so perhaps when it comes time to fully replace the 747 line, Boeing will consider an even larger twin.

To add to this statement, we should also look at Boeing's vision for the future and frame DfwRevolution's statement within the context of that vision. In the 2005 Current Market Outlook Boeing released back around the Paris Airshow this year, it sees the the total market potential for new airframes in the next 20 years to be 25,700, of which it sees the proportion of aircraft in the 450 seats or greater to be only 900. That is for Airbus and Boeing combined. With that in mind, is it really beneficial to make a large investment towards a market that Boeing sees as limited? Now with the investment that Airbus has made on the A380, will they be willing to make another large investment towards a large twin?

-N60659
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:00 am

Vlada, the basic advantage would be the fuel/maintenance savings on two engines instead of four.

Apart from the obvious need for enough engine power to lift the weight and provide adequate performance, the only other possible limitation that occurs to me is wingspan. IMO it would be unwise to go for a span like the A380's, which requires modifications to airport taxiways and gates.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8613
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:10 am

Man I think the B777 is about the limit on twins... it's already huge. No doubt it's technically feasible, but I don't know... 450+ seems too much for just 2 engines.



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
Vlada, the basic advantage would be the fuel/maintenance savings on two engines instead of four.

Well, I don't imagine that working on a massively large engine be much easier than four smaller ones...

I simply don't think the size compensates. Bigger is not always better.

Cheers
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:14 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Until ETOPS ranges greatly exceed the current max. of 240 minutes, there will still be a need for 3 engine and 4 engine airplanes. There are many airlines in South America who cannot use even a B-777 on some routes. They exceed the max 208-240 minute diversion single engine time.

Since ETOPS is to be applied to all aircraft (including three and four engine aircraft), this "advantage" of the tri and quad engine planes has its days counted.

mrocktor
 
vlada
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:25 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:18 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
Vlada, the basic advantage would be the fuel/maintenance savings on two engines instead of four.

Thanks NAV20. But such an engine should be very big, shouldn't it?

DfwRevolution posted something around 160.000 lbs per engine would be required to make such an airplane go.
How big such an engine would be? How strong (=thick=heavy) the wing which carries such an engine around should be?
I do not see such an airplane being built in the near future, not only because of technological limitations or limitations regarding ETOPS rules, but also because I think there's no market need for it.

Regards,
Vlada
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:36 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 9):
Since ETOPS is to be applied to all aircraft (including three and four engine aircraft), this "advantage" of the tri and quad engine planes has its days counted.

Relax, mate ! This is just what Boeing wants (and probably the FAA  Smile ), but EASA and Airbus have different opinions about this. Airbus wants LROPS, which would be applied to both twins and tris/quads. They suggest the limit for twins will be raised to 240 (?) mins (remember that the A358 has a range of 16300 kms, compared to the 16700 kms of the A345), but new limits for tris and quads would be introduced. Of course, tris/quads will keep their advantages on long routes with no alternate airports.

To sum it up, B wants to increase limits for twins almost without restrictions.
A wants to increase twin limits too, but just not as drastic as B. The newly proposed limits for tris/quads clearly indicate that A wants to raise the safety level of air travel.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:37 am

Regarding maintenance, a lot of it is routine checking - obviously, doubling the number of engines doubles the workload. Their actual size would likely be largely irrelevant. The same applies to the spares you'd have to stock. And all the fuel and engine control systems on the aeroplane would be doubled up, too, and would also require checking.

An even bigger factor is, of course, that with four of everything instead of just two, there are twice as many things that can go wrong, and require repair!

At the moment reliability standards for ETOPS types are higher than those for four-engined ones, which maybe slightly reduces the 'per engine' workload on fours - but, as mrocktor points out above, fours will soon be required to meet the same standards as twins.
 
vlada
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:25 pm

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:54 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
An even bigger factor is, of course, that with four of everything instead of just two, there are twice as many things that can go wrong, and require repair!

Are there any consolidated reports out there as to what is the reliability footprint of modern four-engined vs. two-engined aircraft? Are the two-engined models significantly more reliable?

Regards,
Vlada
 
c680
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:56 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
Man I think the B777 is about the limit on twins... it's already huge. No doubt it's technically feasible, but I don't know... 450+ seems too much for just 2 engines.

I think the same thing was said about the DC-2 when it came along (less Pax of course..)

Where there is a will, and $$$, there is a way. Of course, just because it *can* be done, doesn't mean it *should* be done.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15186
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:14 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
Man I think the B777 is about the limit on twins... it's already huge. No doubt it's technically feasible, but I don't know... 450+ seems too much for just 2 engines.

450+ maybe, but 450-, that's where the plane will lie.

A 773 can fly 368 (boeing figure for 3 class) 6000nm on GE90-94 engines. This is an "old technology" plane, heavy with older engines. The 773ER improved on that with a modified wing and new engines, but not much else.

Apply the more fuel efficient engine technology being worked on now to a GE90-115 sized super high bypass ratio engine and you would likely get 125k of thrust at least, apply the lighter materials of the 787 to a new fuselage sized from 340-460 pax with a newer wing than the 777/747A, and it is not so hard to think of, really.

The 741 had the same capacity of the 773ER, a higher MTOW, and only slightly better engine out take-off performance to fly less distance. Nobody could have imagined a plane like the 773ER back then, and even with the 767, A300 etc., nobody would have said it was more than a pipedream in the 80s that a twin could do that. Then in the 90s, it was only a matter of time.

So I would say we could easily see a plane that can achieve that in 10 years.

At first there would be no 450-460 pax model, one reason for B to launch the 747Advanced. It would still likely require another advance in engine technology and even material design to get the 460 version to fly 8000nm. But starting with the 340 pax model and the 400 pax model EIS 2013-14, while offering a 787-10 at 295 pax, and still offering the 747Adv, you have a fine start through 2015, when you can finally announce the 460 seat version at the time when the market will really be demanding it and the lessons learned from the 787 and smaller "big twins" can be applied.

Of course this is applying to Boeing, because with the A380 and the A350, I don't see how Airbus can offer such a plane any time soon. Theoretically, the A350 could be stretched to a 1000 version at a fuselage size based on the 345/346 sizing. Heck if the A346 weren't so heavy it could be a twin now. After all, 2 GE90-115s generated the same thrust as it's 4 engines, and the 773ER goes the same distance or further, so it's all about the structural weight of the A346, and using the technology they are applying to the A350, there doesn't seem like much of a reason that an A346 size, or slightly smaller, couldn't be in the A350 lineup to "fill the gap" to the A380. Not fully, but a 360 seat A350 would be "enough" for some carriers to "keep it in the family" for operators who use A320s and A330/40s and 744s now, but will use A380s in the future.

I mean, right now, a compelling argument for the 747Adv is that the only plane A offers near the 744 size is the A346 at 380 seats or the A380 at 550 seats, and the old tech 346 is not that economical in comparison to a 747Adv or a 773ER, while the 380 is too big for many carriers who might prefer a 425-450 pax aircraft.
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: Aibus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:17 am

I once thought about making the A346 a twin, giving it this massive GE engines and use it on shorter routes. I'd call it A330-600. But that was just a thought, no too serious.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:24 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 16):
I once thought about making the A346 a twin, giving it this massive GE engines and use it on shorter routes. I'd call it A330-600. But that was just a thought, no too serious.

Even better, keep the A330s engines and its wing and make the fuselage as long as the A346´s one.
But hell will freeze when major airlines from Japan buy A again...
 Sad
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:17 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 3):
If Boeing were to go forward with a mega twin , say before 2020 . Would that in any way threaten the a380 ?

At some point in the future, Boeing will most likely offer a very large twin to replace the B777-300 and B747-500. I generally agree with Ikramerica on this, though I think it will happen a few years later than suggested in his post. The next really big decision for Boeing will be whether to build this plane or the B737/B757 replacement first. That decision will need to be made two to four years from now and will depend largely on the relative order backlogs at the time for the B737, B777, and B747. The planes with the smaller order backlogs will get replaced first.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Until ETOPS ranges greatly exceed the current max. of 240 minutes, there will still be a need for 3 engine and 4 engine airplanes. There are many airlines in South America who cannot use even a B-777 on some routes. They exceed the max 208-240 minute diversion single engine time.

ETOPS330 is available to any airline that applies and meets the requirements. The only routes that can't be flown ETOPS330 are PER to South America and NZ to South Africa.
 
shamrocka330
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:45 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:33 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
But hell will freeze when major airlines from Japan buy A again...

I don't understand what you mean by this A342...
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:47 am

Quoting Shamrocka330 (Reply 19):
I don't understand what you mean by this A342...

I mean that it will take quite a time until ANA and JAL buy Airbus planes again, if ever. I´m sorry to say this, but they and Japan itself are quite pro-Boeing biassed. Airbus planes are flying with Japanese parts, the A380 included, but if they don´t buy Airbus though, it´s quite foreseeable that Airbus will never use Japanese parts again, except Bridgestone tyres. Chinese and Russian companies are just doing the work cheaper.
But then again large Boeing parts are coming from Japan, especially for the 787.
Are ANA and/or JAL still (partly) state owned ?
 
shamrocka330
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:45 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:58 am

Thats very interesting A342 but I find it very hard to believe...I'd say its more to do with both airlines being loyal Boeing customers.

JAL aren't state owned, don't know bout ANA.
 
flybmi330
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:46 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:59 am

A342,

what on earth has that to do with this topic?
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:04 am

Quoting Flybmi330 (Reply 22):
A342,

what on earth has that to do with this topic?

Nothing. That´s a.net real life.  Smile
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20866
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:18 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 3):
If Boeing were to go forward with a mega twin , say before 2020 . Would that in any way threaten the a380 ?

Not really. The A380, with or without stretch, will still be way larger than a 450 pax aircraft.

Quoting Vlada (Reply 4):
I'm really interested in this issue: what would be the key strongpoints for building a 450+ seat twin instead of a three- or four-pot a/c?
Is there a theoretical limitation to what would be a max. feasible size for a twin-engine aircraft, in terms of weight/size/thrust/payload/fuelburn/... ratios?

Twin is all about maintenance. And no, there is no theoretical limitation. Larger turbines exist. Mounting them under a wing is the problem.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
Man I think the B777 is about the limit on twins... it's already huge. No doubt it's technically feasible, but I don't know... 450+ seems too much for just 2 engines.

Every technological doubter of the past 3000 years has eventually been proven wrong  Wink But I agree with some posters that at our current tech level it's just easier and cheaper to make it a quad given a certain size. What that "certain size" is exactly is of course open to much debate.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:19 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Like I said, it's all about development cost. The 747-Adv will be very cheap, probably no more than $2 billion dollars to incorperate new 787-like engines, wingtip modification, stretch, etc.

I do not concur. McD-D spent 6-7 billion on developing the MD11 and that was a stretched DC10 with a glass cockpit and winglets. It's not at all as if you just cut off what you need...

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
simply don't think the size compensates. Bigger is not always better.

Cheers

Some people in Tolouse would probably take issue with that....they seem to have staked a lotta greenbacks on the proposition that size matters.

Quoting A342 (Reply 20):
I mean that it will take quite a time until ANA and JAL buy Airbus planes again, if ever. I´m sorry to say this, but they and Japan itself are quite pro-Boeing biassed. Airbus planes are flying with Japanese parts, the A380 included, but if they don´t buy Airbus though, it´s quite foreseeable that Airbus will never use Japanese parts again, except Bridgestone tyres. Chinese and Russian companies are just doing the work cheaper.
But then again large Boeing parts are coming from Japan, especially for the 787.
Are ANA and/or JAL still (partly) state owned ?

The decision to buy or to not buy parts will hinge on price, availability, sufficient quality, and the track record of the source....don't kid yourself, it's only about money. Money has no loyalty, whether it's Airbus or Boeing signing the checks.

You gotta ask yourself....if you're Mr. Henry Ford hisself, and you keep leaving flyers under the windshield wiper of my Chevrolet telling me what a good car you have, but I buy Chevrolets because of the price, the service, the relationship I have with my dealer, and the adaptability of the product to all my needs, is it bias if I don't buy a Ford?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9314
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:20 am

>> I mean that it will take quite a time until ANA and JAL buy Airbus planes again, if ever. I´m sorry to say this, but they and Japan itself are quite pro-Boeing biassed.

A342, say what you will about "Boeing bias," but actually take a look at the recent fleet aquisitions of JL and NH. Both carriers already opperated large 777 fleets when they ordered the 773ER. Airbus was completly adrift when Boeing initially offered the 787, pitching an unmodified A330 at NH and a re-engined A330 at JL. Furthermore, Boeing offered a short-haul variant (the 787-3) which won the majority of both JL and NH's order.

You can't call "Boeing bias" when (1) Airbus didn't have anything close to being competitive at the time and (2) they took straight forward decisions to consolidate types.

>> Airbus planes are flying with Japanese parts, the A380 included, but if they don´t buy Airbus though, it´s quite foreseeable that Airbus will never use Japanese parts again, except Bridgestone tyres.

So what... BA opperates the 777 even though the A330/A340 have much more "British" content than the 777. The majority of BA's fleet is even GE powered. Ditto for AF. They overruled political pressure to order the A343 and selected the 777 as the primary long-haul type, albiet with GE (partially SNECMA) engines.

Strange concept, but many carriers do order what they need not what appears PC.

>> Are ANA and/or JAL still (partly) state owned ?

No

>> I do not concur. McD-D spent 6-7 billion on developing the MD11 and that was a stretched DC10 with a glass cockpit and winglets. It's not at all as if you just cut off what you need...

Approx. $2 billion is Boeing's figure and most of the development work was completed under previous Boeing studies. Wing treatment from 747-400XQLR, stretch engineering from 747-X, avionics from 787, and minimal modification engines from GE.

[Edited 2005-09-18 22:22:53]
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8613
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:34 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
Every technological doubter of the past 3000 years has eventually been proven wrong Wink



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 25):

Some people in Tolouse would probably take issue with that....they seem to have staked a lotta greenbacks on the proposition that size matters.

I don't doubt the technology, and the A380 is in a different category. All I'm saying is that size can be a hassle.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):

Thanks for the response, and I agree much with what you said. Composite technology will reduce the size of engines as less power will be needed to accomplish the same work.

Cheers
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:35 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 11):
Relax, mate ! This is just what Boeing wants (and probably the FAA ), but EASA and Airbus have different opinions about this. Airbus wants LROPS, which would be applied to both twins and tris/quads. They suggest the limit for twins will be raised to 240 (?) mins (remember that the A358 has a range of 16300 kms, compared to the 16700 kms of the A345), but new limits for tris and quads would be introduced. Of course, tris/quads will keep their advantages on long routes with no alternate airports.

To sum it up, B wants to increase limits for twins almost without restrictions.
A wants to increase twin limits too, but just not as drastic as B. The newly proposed limits for tris/quads clearly indicate that A wants to raise the safety level of air travel.

You are mixing things. The raised limits for ETOPS (207,240,330 etc.) are one issue. What I mentioned is the fact that the standards are to be applied to all transport category aircraft, irrespective of the number of engines.

This means that the A340 and 747 would have to be shown to be ETOPS compliant to fly beyond 60 minutes from the nearest suitable airfield. It is a big change.

Due to the significant impact this would have, it is likely a fairly long adaptation period will be permitted.

mrocktor
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:40 am

I didn't realise this was what LROPS was about. I thought it simply took the non powerplants related parts, such as requirements for fire suppression, and applied it to other aircraft. I didn't realise that the engines was also being restricted.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:44 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
A 773 can fly 368 (boeing figure for 3 class) 6000nm on GE90-94 engines.

Of course you'd have to certify that combination, first.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
Apply the more fuel efficient engine technology being worked on now to a GE90-115 sized super high bypass ratio engine and you would likely get 125k of thrust at least,

What does the fuel efficient engine technology have to do with the thrust?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 18):
ETOPS330 is available to any airline that applies and meets the requirements

It is most certainly not.

N
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:45 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 26):
Approx. $2 billion is Boeing's figure and most of the development work was completed under previous Boeing studies. Wing treatment from 747-400XQLR, stretch engineering from 747-X, avionics from 787, and minimal modification engines from GE.

They wouldn't be the first airplane company to lowball a product development cost analysis to get the ball rolling and get some launch customers to sign up...a stretch changes everything and it gets really involved when you actually build the thing and try to make everything fit and add up-plus, there's a whole new world of flight testing and aerodynamics that opens up...

Hull sections for the DC10 and MD11 were made in the old Convair plant in San Diego and they came up on barges to the port and they had bogies attached and were towed to the plant at night...I am sure it was quite tempting to say "Well, we'll just call up Convair and tell 'em to add a few more feet on either end to the next set of hull sections."
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9314
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:19 am

>> They wouldn't be the first airplane company to lowball a product development cost analysis to get the ball rolling and get some launch customers to sign up...

Well, you can choose to distrust Boeing's estimates, but it's all we have to work on. The $2 billion figure is actually very reasonable when you compare it to the much more thourough A350 project ($ 5B), and update projects like the A346 ($2-3B) and 777LR ($1-2B). Furthermore, customers (and Boeing) soundly rejected 747 projects like the 747-500/600 and 747-X on the basis of being too expensive. They were in the $6-10B range.

It's highly unlikely that the Adv will run much over $2-3B or it too would have long ago been shelved. Your call if you want to believe it...  Wink
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:20 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30):
What does the fuel efficient engine technology have to do with the thrust?

Fuel efficiency can be misinterpreted as a lack of throttle, hence pushing it could increase thrust -- which is not the case in real life however. Some machines are just designed to run on less fuel, or for more thrust or for endurance, etc.

Speaking of which, does ETOPS imply endurance capabilites of aircraft?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9314
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:29 am

>> Speaking of which, does ETOPS imply endurance capabilites of aircraft?

No, there are 737NG/A320 routes that require certain levels of ETOPS. In a nutshell, ETOPS is not exclusive to very-long ranged airplanes like the 777.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:52 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 18):
ETOPS330 is available to any airline that applies and meets the requirements.



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30):
It is most certainly not.

I believe my statement is axiomatically true. If it's not, then how so?
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:52 am

No no, I meant in terms of a power curve graph of an airplane. If I wanted max range I fly at Vmax; if I lost an engine, should I fly at minimum power and go for maximum endurance? Is that how it works? Or did I still not get it?
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:13 pm

Quoting Dfwrevolution (Reply 32):
Well, you can choose to distrust Boeing's estimates, but it's all we have to work on. The $2 billion figure is actually very reasonable when you compare it to the much more thourough A350 project ($ 5B), and update projects like the A346 ($2-3B) and 777LR ($1-2B). Furthermore, customers (and Boeing) soundly rejected 747 projects like the 747-500/600 and 747-X on the basis of being too expensive. They were in the $6-10B range.

It's highly unlikely that the Adv will run much over $2-3B or it too would have long ago been shelved. Your call if you want to believe it...

Maybe I'm a bit of a cynic but I saw one of those "Well, it's just an update so it's cheap!" projects in action. It ended up costing a lot more than everyone thought....if you're talking about a stretch ahead of the wing and a stretch behind and a new type of engine then you've got what amounts to a whole new airplane-because in order to gain certification you have to revalidate all the original assumptions, and that means demonstrating them, and then selling them to the FAA on a first article basis...and that costs a lot of money.

I'm sure that the marketing people don't want to scare off any potential customers....they make the world go round.
 
sparkingwave
Posts: 568
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:01 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:51 pm

I agree. Airbus needs a big twin engined plane. 4 engines means twice the maintenance and twice the chance of something going wrong.

Twins have shown how economic and reliable they are over ocean and land. The proven economics point out that it will be the next wave in the future for 450 to 800 passenger aircraft.

All Boeing has to do is to introduce a 747-sized jumbo with twin engines and an all-composite structure to beat out the A380. I suspect that they are at work already on this concept, since the major hurdle is the engine size/power/bypass output.

As long as Airbus can get its hands on EU aid, they should go for re-engineering the A380 with twin engines and an all-composite airframe+wing structure.

Just my 2 twin turbo-cents...

SparkingWave
 
flyabunch
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:42 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:12 pm

I wonder about the size factors in building a bigger twin engine jetliner. If you look at the size of the GE 777 engine now, it requires that the plane sit quite high so that the engines clear the ground. If you built a 160,000 lb. thrust engine, what would the diameter be? How much higher would that wing have to sit?

If you went to an over wing configuration, it would help but its my understanding, from what I have read in previous posts is that the over wing setup is a non-starter with the airlines.

If they could make the engine similar in size to the present big GE's then I think a bigger twin is feasible. But I think a physically bigger engine would really limit the potential...and drive up the development costs.

Mike
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:30 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 35):
I believe my statement is axiomatically true. If it's not, then how so?

Today, the maximum is 180 minutes. There is one exception. If a field which covers ETOPS in the north pacific is closed, then the 777 is allowed by the FAA to go as far as 207 minutes. Of course, these 777 must have ETOPS 180 certification, if not a special one for 207 minutes, not sure about that.
Keep in mind that this is a rarely occurring exception. Usually, no ETOPS beyond 180 minutes is available.
 
NWDC10
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:15 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:02 pm

I know it HAS to be possible but Boeing needs to make a TWIN 747. Just imagine how fuel efficient and economical that would be. Robert NWDC10
 
hz747300
Posts: 2421
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:21 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Yes, it's definitly possible. However, given the current focus of Airbus product development, I seriously doubt it will happen before 2020. Such an aircraft would be a 100% new platform and easily exceed $10 billion dollars.

They could just ask Angela Merkel for the money.

Quoting Flyabunch (Reply 39):
I wonder about the size factors in building a bigger twin engine jetliner. If you look at the size of the GE 777 engine now, it requires that the plane sit quite high so that the engines clear the ground. If you built a 160,000 lb. thrust engine, what would the diameter be? How much higher would that wing have to sit?

Maybe they could attach the wing to the top of the plane like the AN-225, and other Russian airliners. That would add more clearance and it would make the views better for passengers without the wings getting in the way.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:00 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 40):

Today, the maximum is 180 minutes. There is one exception. If a field which covers ETOPS in the north pacific is closed, then the 777 is allowed by the FAA to go as far as 207 minutes. Of course, these 777 must have ETOPS 180 certification, if not a special one for 207 minutes, not sure about that.
Keep in mind that this is a rarely occurring exception. Usually, no ETOPS beyond 180 minutes is available.

I think no airline has applied for ETOPS330 yet.
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:04 pm

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 42):

They could just ask Angela Merkel for the money.

Why? She's neither chancellor nor a billionaire...  laughing 


Regards
Udo
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:42 pm

Quoting Udo (Reply 44):
Why? She's neither chancellor nor a billionaire...

One of those could change soon. Merkel has all the advantages. If Schroeder refuses to join a Grand Coalition as the junior member, then Merkel will have the option of trying to form a minority government. If that fails and new elections have to be held, the colder weather will favor Merkel. It hard to see how anyone else could be the next chancellor unless something totally unexpected happens. Or am I missing something?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16447
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:59 pm

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
Is it possible to make a twin whose large capacity model would seat 450 people? It means a much bigger twin than the 777 for instance.

777-300ER is already certified for 550 passengers.

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
I think Airbus needs a bigger twin than the A350 to replace the A340-600 and fill the gap with the A380.

I would love Airbus to buy the AN124 design, replace the engines with 4 x Trent 556 or Trent 600's, add some composites, FMGC, ECAM, fly by wire, two crew, and some composites would have a real winner freighter of 150 t capacity.

They have just gone back into production.
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:59 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 45):
One of those could change soon. Merkel has all the advantages.

Even if she makes it into office, there's no money to spend.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 45):
If Schroeder refuses to join a Grand Coalition as the junior member, then Merkel will have the option of trying to form a minority government.

Tolerated by who? SPD, Greens, PDS?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 45):
If that fails and new elections have to be held, the colder weather will favor Merkel.

I'd say new elections would favor Schröder. If the election had been held only two days later, the SPD would have been in front.

Anyways, wrong forum for that.


Regards
Udo
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:14 pm

A few years back I posted this topic:
Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

https://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/1295838

This became the A350-900.

I wonder if there will ever be a 3 holer which seems the logical compromise between Twin ETOPS issues and 4 engine costs..

Boeing & Airbus did some studies in de past (777) of a 2.5 engined aircraft. The .5 being a power dual purpose APU only to be used in flight in as a back-up.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus Needs A Big Twin

Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:19 pm

3-holers are not in consideration because of the MX issues. Twins are the way to go. ETOPS330 will happen when there is a need.

I don't think we'll see APUs providing thrust. The expectation is that the next generation of APUs will be based on fuel cell technology.

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