Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

airmagnac · Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:04 pm

Guys, this was a Lufo program of the DLR, IOW a research program run over a finite time frame by the German equivalent of NASA
http://www.dlr.de/pt-lf/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-8304/

DLR generates knowledge, it is not in the business of designing airliners. As with any research program, the goal of this one was to identify issues, risks, invent new ways of working, and generate gross performance data to be used as a reference and give a feel of what can be accomplished with current technologies
The Airbus involvement was likely to provide real-world data, give some industrial perspective, and obtain a feel for ways to exploit new tech (and get some money off the European tax payer Smile

). It is quite possible that senior Airbus management never directly heard of this project. No need to draw conclusions on company strategy from it

Otherwise, I might tell you that I worked on an electric Light Sports Aircraft a few years back, and my team got a couple thousand euros from Airbus. With the logic displayed in this thread, I guess it means Airbus plans to take over the LSA segment. Well...no

Other example : do you think Boeing plans to build this thing any time soon ? http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/nplus3-0517.html

At least, there is something useful here, in that the comments in the AW article are absolutely priceless. Nationalistic stereotypes seem to be alive and well

[Edited 2014-01-30 15:08:48]

David L · Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:46 am

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 150):
With the logic displayed in this thread, I guess it means Airbus plans to take over the LSA segment.

We should also expect them to make a start on a V-tailed tri-jet with a transparent fuselage before they can make a start on this more recent "active consideration".

zippyjet · Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:03 am

Would it become the A 360?

abba · Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:46 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 130):
The engine technology on the A380 isn't exactly old. And as the A380 hasn't really flown off the shelves as planned I am sure the current engine partners would like more time to try to recoup their investment. It will be interesting to watch.

Certainly!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 130):
It certainly would be the dream scenario. It didn't work out too well for the 748 though.

No it did not work well for the 748/787 combination. But for other reasons, though.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 149):
I think the big manufacturers should rest with big twin jets for a while to prevent this L1011/DC10 scenario.

Don't forget that the market at the time of the DC10 L1011 and the market of today cannot be compared - and don't forget how it is likely going to develop over the next decade. When developed the DC10 L1011 could expect to sell in the hundres. Today a new product can expect to sell in the thousands. Perhaps frames like the 787 and 350 will reach 10.000 copies sold if they are allowed the same 40 years run as other programs.

DocLightning · Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:16 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 4):
he article says that this could be in service as early as 2023.

That means they've given up on the A380.

Anyway, I haven't seen anyone bring up the late keeje's "EcoLiner"

As he explained it, the ovoid cross-section makes better use of interior space than the 747 with its empty dead room. The Ecoliner would also have similar cargo volume to a 777:

. It would mean less hold space for a given floorspace of passenger deck and might require larger engines than can be fit into a 747-F (an issue for AOG situations).

SchorschNG · Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:27 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 154):
As he explained it, the ovoid cross-section makes better use of interior space than the 747 with its empty dead room. The Ecoliner would also have similar cargo volume to a 777:

And like many of keesje's illustrations: they are very attractive, but lack the techical background.
Dead room doesn't hurt.
Double-deck layouts hurt.
Before going double deck a genuine 10-abreast over 80m length would be the more attractive solution.

David L · Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:39 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 154):
That means they've given up on the A380.

What is it about the counter-arguments that you don't believe?

parapente · Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:07 am

155
And like many of keesje's illustrations: they are very attractive, but lack the techical background.
Dead room doesn't hurt.
Double-deck layouts hurt.
Before going double deck a genuine 10-abreast over 80m length would be the more attractive solution.

Correct.
Engineer clearly speaking here! And of course the 777-9 is a genuine 10-abreast (well depends on what you consider the correct seat width but I think they are very close to 17.5 which is the historic 747 width).
Length is simply a matter of desired capacity. 400 pax is mabout the max you can get with the biggest possible engines and high lift / high aspect folding wings. (also the engine out tail requirements get really nasty the longer you get

XT6Wagon · Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:06 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 157):
Before going double deck a genuine 10-abreast over 80m length would be the more attractive solution.

11Y at 17.2" in a twin would have some pretty awesome economics and avoids the over 80m issue. Heck even the 748i has some issues where its too long for airports designed 40+ years ago. Those that were even designed after the 747-100 was introduced never planned on an era where the 741 is a midsize plane.

kengo · Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:10 am

Interesting article on mega-twin by AW&ST.

Does Commercial Aviation Need A Mega-Twin?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_01_31_2014_p0-659791.xml

tortugamon · Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:11 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 149):
I think even the engine manufacturers are running out of steam at some point.

They always come up with something new. It does't seem like they are slowing down. The new ceramics is just one new technology that isn't yet pervasive that will result in a few extra percent and I am sure they will continue to come up with others.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 149):
The current A380 engines are how much above the B777X and A350 engines?

The A380 engines are not that much better than the 77W's (in fact they are based on the same core). Its time the A380 to get an engine upgrade so it can regain its CASM lead but it is clearly losing.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 154):
That means they've given up on the A380.

I don't think they have. That is just a study. The A380 will, hopefully, be with us for a long time in my opinion.

Quoting parapente (Reply 157):
also the engine out tail requirements get really nasty the longer you get

This is a good point. Boeing and NASA are working on something for it:

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-boe...-advanced-technology/#.UuueG_ldWoM

I wonder if it can be incorporated on the 777x. I assume it will have Hybrid Laminar Flow but the weight loss through active flow control could benefit them as well. And who knows, maybe it could make my pipe dream 777-10 possible

tortugamon

Revelation · Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:56 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 154):
Anyway, I haven't seen anyone bring up the late keeje's "EcoLiner"

The man himself is doing so in the comments section of the AW article: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_01_27_2014_p29-657272.xml

He's even gone 3D with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln7UIN5NlCc

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 155):
And like many of keesje's illustrations: they are very attractive, but lack the techical background.
Dead room doesn't hurt.
Double-deck layouts hurt.
Before going double deck a genuine 10-abreast over 80m length would be the more attractive solution.

I'm in agreement. The 2nd deck itself as well as the structure to support it adds a lot of weight, so once you pay that penalty, why would you then decide to make it narrow?

Quoting kengo (Reply 159):
Does Commercial Aviation Need A Mega-Twin?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_01_31_2014_p0-659791.xml

Kind of a rehash of their earlier article, IMHO, and perhaps some gleanings from outlets such as this one? In any case, it seems to put a bit more emphasis on the other commitments Airbus already has (A350, A320neo) or is considering (A380 tweaks, A330neo) and also the market risk of putting a new 400 seater into the market.

astuteman · Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:42 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 137):
One of these days I have to get Mr ferpe to explain to me how the A351 doesn't gain much in terms of fuel burn per m2 vs the A359 but somehow the A350-1100 can add more powerful engines and a ~6m stretch and beef up the MLG and fly nearly as far while consuming 10% less fuel

I suspect it's the extra weight added by the 6 wheel bogie in going from -900 to -1000, something the -1000 to -1100 doesn't have to contend with

Quoting parapente (Reply 157):
And like many of keesje's illustrations: they are very attractive, but lack the techical background.
Dead room doesn't hurt.
Double-deck layouts hurt.

And in more ways than people think.
The proponents of the Ecoliner
don't tell you where all the systems you need to support both of those decks have disappeared to - the "crown of the 777" and the "underdeck of the 737" occupy the same space, and so presumably do the conflicting systems
don't tell you where the extra strength of the deck comes from (note the depth of the A380 deck)
don't tell you where the tapering of the fuselage both at the nose and at the tail have mysteriously disappeared. This plane is a lot taller than a 777 and will have commensurately longer tailcones. The Ecoliner could not possibly have the same cabin length to fuselage length the 777 has.

That's one of the issues with the A380-800, and one of the reasons the stretches become so appealing. They add an amount of cabin space disproportionate to the length of fuselage added.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 161):
The man himself is doing so in the comments section of the AW article: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....2.xml

My God. The comments following that article defy comprehension. I'd have never have believed that so much uninformed vitriol could have been aimed at Airbus if I hadn't been on a-net for 9 years..

rgds

KarelXWB · Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:57 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 144):
Now in order for the A350-1100 to beat the 777-9 by 10% it would have to have to burn ~2.37 per l/100km/m2 or 10.6% better than the stated A351 figure of 2.65.

Indeed, it's also 2.63 for the A351.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 162):
I suspect it's the extra weight added by the 6 wheel bogie in going from -900 to -1000, something the -1000 to -1100 doesn't have to contend with

Suggested MTOW increase is only 12 tons (308 => 320), versus 40 tons for the -900 to -1000 upgrade (268 => 308).

[Edited 2014-01-31 08:59:09]

Revelation · Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:58 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 162):
That's one of the issues with the A380-800, and one of the reasons the stretches become so appealing. They add an amount of cabin space disproportionate to the length of fuselage added.

Indeed so. You've already paid the price for the tapering and for the 2nd deck, adding length just amortizes those costs better. Still, to me, we won't see the stretch until it's abundantly clear that EK et al will stop buying new -800s till they get the -900. Till then, there is no reason for Airbus to spend a lot of money developing and testing an airframe that only competes against itself.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 162):
My God. The comments following that article defy comprehension. I'd have never have believed that so much uninformed vitriol could have been aimed at Airbus if I hadn't been on a-net for 9 years..

Indeed. It seems many of the posters there have been under a rock (or somewhere else) for a very long time and just crawled out to make a post before they return.

tortugamon · Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:12 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 163):
Suggested MTOW increase is only 12 tons (308 => 320), versus 40 tons for the -900 to -1000 upgrade (268 => 308).

See, its those kind of numbers that just don't make sense to me. Not sure how they can all be 8knm aircraft.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 162):
I suspect it's the extra weight added by the 6 wheel bogie in going from -900 to -1000, something the -1000 to -1100 doesn't have to contend with

That certainly is part of it. It makes me wonder about the 789 to 781 stretch because it gains much less efficiency.

tortugamon

abba · Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:39 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 164):
Till then, there is no reason for Airbus to spend a lot of money developing and testing an airframe that only competes against itself.

This logic is basically flawed. Then the 359 should also compete against the 3510 and the 788 against the 789 and so on.

If Airbus is going to make an 389 it will no doubt be sold at a higher prise than the 388 as aircrafts are NOT priced relative to cost of production (including R & D) but relative to what the market is willing to pay. This in turn is based on general competition and - most importantly - a combination of potential for revenue and risk. So at the very moment the extra premium that a 389 can generate relative to the 380 is high enough (which will happen when the market has grown so big that the airlines considder the risk of owning such a beast small enough) Airbus wants to sell 389s rather than 388s as their premium will be higher.

flyingclrs727 · Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:19 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 155):
Before going double deck a genuine 10-abreast over 80m length would be the more attractive solution.

Why not an 11-abreast configuration that could be outfitted with 17 inch wide seats in a 12-abreast configuration? Use the crown space for kitchens, food and cart storage, restrooms, and crew rests.

waly777 · Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:37 pm

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 167):
Why not an 11-abreast configuration that could be outfitted with 17 inch wide seats in a 12-abreast configuration? Use the crown space for kitchens, food and cart storage, restrooms, and crew rests.

Most likely because 12 abreast will require a 3rd aisle.....

flyingclrs727 · Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:49 pm

Quoting waly777 (Reply 168):
Most likely because 12 abreast will require a 3rd aisle.....

I can't see why. A 12-abreast configuration would not require anyone to go across more than 2 occupied seats to access an aisle. If 12-abreast is illegal, why not 11-abreast? 11-abreast still requires crossing 2 seats to acess the aisle.

Maersk737 · Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:47 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 166):
This logic is basically flawed. Then the 359 should also compete against the 3510 and the 788 against the 789 and so on.

If you want a A380 sized plane you have to get in touch with Airbus... I think Revelation has a pretty good point

Peter

[Edited 2014-02-02 11:49:11]

waly777 · Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:15 pm

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 169):
I can't see why. A 12-abreast configuration would not require anyone to go across more than 2 occupied seats to access an aisle. If 12-abreast is illegal, why not 11-abreast? 11-abreast still requires crossing 2 seats to acess the aisle.

11 abreast = 3-5-3

12 abreast = 4-4-4 or 3-6-3

The former would require the window seat pax to cross 3 to get to the aisle and the latter would require the middle seats to cross either 3 seats on one side and 2 on the other. I can't remember why crossing 3 seats to access an aisle is an issue, but it is.

XT6Wagon · Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:09 pm

12Y is the most possible on two isles in 3-6-3. Evacuation regulations prevent anything else. Not sure a triple isle would ever be allowed without large areas to cross over to the exits that would waste so much space as to make it pointless.

KarelXWB · Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:51 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 39):
Those are marketing ranges. I'd like to see how far and with how much payload an A345 with ~250 seats could go. I'm guessing significantly less than 8,000nm.

The same logic applies to other aircraft too. A A350 or 787 with a realistic payload will not fly 8,000nm; those aircraft are more in the 7,000nm ballpark.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/23lgfm.jpg

Therefore, I respectfully disagree your statement "787/A350/A380 all have similar range as the A345".

argonaught · Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:14 pm

Did the three- and four-engine airliner configurations ever have any raison d'etre other than the shortcomings of the earlier jet engine designs in the power output- and reliability departments? I can't think of one.

Should there be a sustainable non-niche market for 500+ seaters, and as long as we still have capitalism, some aircraft will capture this segment. There are no new 3- or 4-holer airliner designs in the real-life pipeline. So, this hypothetical aircraft for the 500+ pax segment will have to be a twin.

Could the A340 -> A330 makeover be performed on A380 at a reasonable cost, given the eventual availability of adequate engines?

tortugamon · Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:56 pm

Quoting argonaught (Reply 174):
Did the three- and four-engine airliner configurations ever have any raison d'etre other than the shortcomings of the earlier jet engine designs in the power output- and reliability departments? I can't think of one.

Power output and reliability are pretty important limitations, no?

Quoting argonaught (Reply 174):
Could the A340 -> A330 makeover be performed on A380 at a reasonable cost, given the eventual availability of adequate engines?

There reaches a limit at some point because with two engines you need for the aircraft to be able to reach V1 then have an engine out and still take off at MTOW to reasonable and safe height and that is no small feat for an aircraft the size of the A380. Also, the pressure and capability on the tail to compensate for one engine out in those circumstances is enormous so the larger the twin the more extra weight and capability that needs to be incorporated there.

But probably the biggest limitation is the engine power itself. I think it would need about 150klbf and the most powerful that has ever been made is 115k. No small jump. The diameter of a 105k GE9x is 132" (bigger than a 737 fuse) so I don't know just big it would have to be and therefore, how tall the MLG would have to be to give it clearance and just how heavy it would be and how much support weight it would need.

Certainly it is possible but there is a point of diminishing returns. I think a lot of the reason the A380 is as big as it is is because they needed it to be that big to get the economics to work. For a big twin it wouldn't need to be that big to still make the economics work. Maybe 450 seats could work.

I think we will eventually see the engines incorporated directly into the wing/fuse making clearance less important and reducing drag at the same time. That is a ways off though.

tortugamon

Flyglobal · Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:06 pm

Quoting argonaught (Reply 174):
Should there be a sustainable non-niche market for 500+ seaters, and as long as we still have capitalism, some aircraft will capture this segment. There are no new 3- or 4-holer airliner designs in the real-life pipeline. So, this hypothetical aircraft for the 500+ pax segment will have to be a twin.

Today one Aircraft captures the segment. The A380.

The 500+ seat market needs to really explode to start a brand new Aircraft development and in addition an Engine Maker who develops a 150.000 lbs engine. I don't see this for the next 25 years. The A380 can 'always' use the latest engine technology developed for the mass produced twins - just needs four of them and will capture 90% of the market for a forseable future,

Quoting argonaught (Reply 174):
Could the A340 -> A330 makeover be performed on A380 at a reasonable cost, given the eventual availability of adequate engines?

I din't think so- The two engines may require higher positioned wings which would cost a hell of money- But then you are close to a new plane anyways. As above - not in the next 20 years.

Flyglobal

argonaught · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:20 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 175):
think we will eventually see the engines incorporated directly into the wing/fuse making clearance less important and reducing drag at the same time.

That would be very exciting. If I remember correctly, the bloodlines of the Comet and the TU104 went extinct in the 60s for the fear of an engine fire or explosion shredding the whole plane apart; hence the advent of externally mounted (and later jettisonable) pods a-la the 707 and the Caravelle. That said, fighter planes past the Schwalbe and the Meteor have all had engines inside, correct?

rwessel · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:36 pm

Quoting argonaught (Reply 177):
That would be very exciting. If I remember correctly, the bloodlines of the Comet and the TU104 went extinct in the 60s for the fear of an engine fire or explosion shredding the whole plane apart; hence the advent of externally mounted (and later jettisonable) pods a-la the 707 and the Caravelle.

No, mostly that you can't actually fit high bypass engines inside wings.

DocLightning · Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:09 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 172):

12Y is the most possible on two isles in 3-6-3. Evacuation regulations prevent anything else. Not sure a triple isle would ever be allowed without large areas to cross over to the exits that would waste so much space as to make it pointless.

But even with a twin-aisle 3-6-3, you have to be able to get everyone out in 90 seconds or less, meaning more exit doors per unit length. That's 20% more passengers per row, so 20% more door per row needed.

Quoting argonaught (Reply 174):
Did the three- and four-engine airliner configurations ever have any raison d'etre other than the shortcomings of the earlier jet engine designs in the power output- and reliability departments? I can't think of one.

The one other advantage to a three-engine design is the hot-and-high factor. The engine-out penalty is a bit better on the four-engine aircraft, which retains 75% of its thrust. The twin takes a higher penalty at hot/high airstrips.

Quoting abba (Reply 166):
This logic is basically flawed. Then the 359 should also compete against the 3510 and the 788 against the 789 and so on.

Not necessarily. The A350 has outside competition, namely the 787. Airbus needs to offer the A35J because it competes partially with the 78J and partially with the 778. The A388 has no competition. If Airbus offers a A389, EK might convert some of their A388 orders to A389, but that doesn't gain more overall orders and makes it hard to justify the cost of the upgrade. Thus, the A389 does compete with the A388.

The other thing is that the market for the A380 is not as big as Airbus thought it would be. An increase in the use of secondary airports for long-haul flying with smaller aircraft like the 777, A330, 787, and soon the A350 will make very large aircraft less useful. Airbus made a bet that bigger would work, Boeing made a bet for smaller. It seems as if Boeing won the bet, even if they botched their offering badly.

I do think there will be a market for larger aircraft, but I think it's still a couple of decades off.

Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net