Would it be more feasible to replace the A300/310 with a model (A360) using the A350 fuselage with a new wing? Instead of a clean sheet.

Slug71 wrote:

Would it be more feasible to replace the A300/310 with a model (A360) using the A350 fuselage with a new wing? Instead of a clean sheet.

i think the A350 fuselage is optimized to carry 350 passengers 9 abreast and LD3s over 6000-7000 NM. Making that competitive for 200-240 passenger 3500NM seems like a weak business case.

I think if Airbus doesn’t come up with something really new, they will be stranded in a couple of years with a brilliant A350 and warmed up models like the A330neo which nobody wants while Boeing has listened to their customers and invested accordingly.

I remember at Airbus when the A350 M1 was developped and everyone was so sure that their A300 fuselage was everybody’s dream. Now the B787 has grown into a good a/c and the A330neo can’t even use the opportunities a full B787 production line was supposed to bring
Wake up Airbus
The A320 fuselage is not the answer for a true MOM

Slug71 wrote:

Would it be more feasible to replace the A300/310 with a model (A360) using the A350 fuselage with a new wing? Instead of a clean sheet.

Definitely not. It would need to be very short. Short and stubby airport usually have a lot of wasted space in the tail. It would make the A310 look skinny.

Most airlines would use a 10 abreast cabin on a short haul A350. If the cabin is half the length they can use narrower aisles as you have less total people. If it does a lot of 1000nm sectors 17" seats will be acceptable too. The lightweight composite fuselage won't make up for the poor width to length ratio.

keesje wrote:

This A360-900 concept has sweep, cockpit, fairings optimized for a 8-10% higher cruise speed than A320s. That starts to matter on flights longer than 4-5 hours. Added some OEW too for higher sweep, lower wing thickness.

Turning a A321 into a 757. Too much wing will make it perform worse on short haul missions. The lighter 737MAX already has a slight fuel burn advantage on short haul.

The C series fell into the trap of too much wing. Designing it for medium haul rather than short regional work. You get wide seats for 6+ hour flights but too much comfort and dead weight for regional flights. CASM simply wasn't good enough. Jack of all trades master of none. The E190 is just as good for regional wotk and the 6 abreast is just as good for long flights. It needed to either target the 737 or E190 directly not try and do both. If it was built a foot narrower with 500nm less range it would have been 5% lighter a big CASM advantage and had the entire market below 1000nm to themselves.

Like a chess game you must think one move ahead. Boeing's widebody, lightweight, short/medium haul MOM will allow them to make the 737 replacement very small and light. Think a Max8 cabin size with a weight under 40T with a MTO of 70T.

Airbus probably will rewing the A320 family eventually. But I think it will be much smaller than you expect. The A321 carries those heavy fuselage tanks. Making a wing slightly larger so the fuselage tanks can be removed makes sense. So the total fuel capacity is the same, but all fuel is now in the wings. The weight saved from removing the fuselage tanks is now in the larger wings. Empty weight is the same, fuel capacity is the same, engines are the same, landing gear is the same. Drag is slightly improved by the larger wing so at the same takeoff and landing speed it could maybe carry an extra ton or two of payload. Range would improve slightly by a better loft to drag ratio. Most important aspect is that CASM on short haul has improved. It would also allow for a small additional stretch.

I think Airbus could achieve this fairly easy with a camber increase of the current wing and some big wing tip extensions putting it into class D. As much as we want it to go full carbon, it doesnt really have to be.

RJMAZ wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Would it be more feasible to replace the A300/310 with a model (A360) using the A350 fuselage with a new wing? Instead of a clean sheet.

Definitely not. It would need to be very short. Short and stubby airport usually have a lot of wasted space in the tail. It would make the A310 look skinny.

Most airlines would use a 10 abreast cabin on a short haul A350. If the cabin is half the length they can use narrower aisles as you have less total people. If it does a lot of 1000nm sectors 17" seats will be acceptable too. The lightweight composite fuselage won't make up for the poor width to length ratio.

The A350 fuselage is only 32cm wider than the A330's. Would that really make that much difference?

For all we care, Airbus' response to the MoM could be 757-300 length, 6-abreast slightly wider than the A320, Cseries style composite aircraft with bigger wings. The engines could be a larger PW geared turbofan or Rolls Royce Advance/UltraFan. I heard somewhere of a contra-rotating turbofan being studied. Afterwards, Airbus could replace the A320 with the CS500.

And end up with something that will be worse than the A321 on short routes and most A321 do not fly TATL.

Slug71 wrote:

The A350 fuselage is only 32cm wider than the A330's. Would that really make that much difference?

45cm difference in height though. 42cm different in cabin width at armrest level.

That's an extra seat down the full length of the cabin which means a shorter cabin required.

From a drag perspective its not good. You'd need fairly large control surfaces due to the short movement arm. It would probably offset the weight savings of a composite design.

Though it depends if you are thinking towards the very high end of the MOM market. A 10m shrink of the A350-900 would be about as short as you'd want to go. That pretty much gets you at where the A330 sits now.

An A350-700 with a 75% scaled down wing, with smaller lighter Trent's from the 787 would tap into the large medium haul market. It would have been better than the A330NEO which has now grown to have massive range.

One must not forget that Boeing projects up to 5000 frames for the MoM over its lifetime, this sounds like a lot, but the current orders for the A321 + 737-1000 already reach 2000 frames and that is within a few years after launch of each product. NEO and MAX series combined have already reached orders that exceed the assumed MoM production run by nearly 100%.

The MoM must either add a plane above this market space or increase the market coverage of a product from this market space without negatively impacting the performance of this product in the core market.

The problem remains, that additional range always comes with addtional OEW and more OEW has a negative impact for short range missions which still are the majority.

In the end I think Boeing will tap into the 767/A300/A310 segment with Airbus improving the A321 to be a modern 757 with enough range for TATL flights from most of Europe to the East Coast.

WIederling wrote:

Sweep goes down with better management of supercritical ( and other aero) features.
( look at the A340 laminar flow demonstrator. the outboard extensions are "scaled NB wings" )

That it does, but the A320 wing is pretty damn good already (supercritical).

re. the laminar flow - there has been demos before - yet very little making their way onto the main wings (cert authorities don't seem to like it - probably needing guarantee of performance - e.g. how would ETOPS work?)

Jeez Guys,
We're going in circles here! What Boeing does should NOT be causing stress at Airbus. What Boeing Does is what Boeing Does!
airbus should seek to improve on the products they make and not worry about what Boeing does. Airbus is already fly by wire for the most part and Boeing is not yet fully digital across their product line as if yet. If you'd bothered to Look? Boeing has the move the B767 planform into the Digital realm with the B797. the B757 and the B737 plans into the Digital realm. Then?! There will be the race to see who does what to whom. Airbus needs to improve and innovate their product line with regard to building their offerings.
Because if they don't?? Boeing will come out with one new model after another and leave Airbus sucking "Hind tit". \the time for call and response is over. Airbus needs to innovate rather than respond.

strfyr51 wrote:

airbus should seek to improve on the products they make and not worry about what Boeing does.

That would be naive in the extreme (for either company!)


Due to events of the last month or so, Boeing really should have completely restarted their strategic assessment that led to them believing producing a "MoM" aircraft is the best move for the company.

There does not seem to be any sign of this, which is a bit worrying. Hype-trains often build irresistible momentum, even if they are heading for what might be a collapsed bridge!

Amiga500 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Sweep goes down with better management of supercritical ( and other aero) features.
( look at the A340 laminar flow demonstrator. the outboard extensions are "scaled NB wings" )

That it does, but the A320 wing is pretty damn good already (supercritical).

re. the laminar flow - there has been demos before - yet very little making their way onto the main wings (cert authorities don't seem to like it - probably needing guarantee of performance - e.g. how would ETOPS work?)

Unpleasant effects from loss of laminar flow / stall properties seem to be a major hold back?

RJMAZ wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

The A350 fuselage is only 32cm wider than the A330's. Would that really make that much difference?

45cm difference in height though. 42cm different in cabin width at armrest level.

That's an extra seat down the full length of the cabin which means a shorter cabin required.

From a drag perspective its not good. You'd need fairly large control surfaces due to the short movement arm. It would probably offset the weight savings of a composite design.

Though it depends if you are thinking towards the very high end of the MOM market. A 10m shrink of the A350-900 would be about as short as you'd want to go. That pretty much gets you at where the A330 sits now.

An A350-700 with a 75% scaled down wing, with smaller lighter Trent's from the 787 would tap into the large medium haul market. It would have been better than the A330NEO which has now grown to have massive range.

IMO the best frame for a small wide body at Airbus would be to keep to the A300/310/330 form factor and start at the low end in size aka A310, range 5000nm, right sized wing, MLG and so on. With the possibility of a simple stretch to A300 size, with corresponding lower range. Optimize weight rather than drag as the average flight distances will be short.

Whilst of course you keep an eye out for your competition,they do need to take a look at their own products,not just one step but at least 2 steps ahead.
In the mid market (787/330Neo) Boeing clearly has a long term advantage.The 350 is proving itself as a fantastic longhauler but looses out at medium ranges.The 330 will soldier on for a while but will have to be replaced by something (The 350-8 just didn't cut it).
So when they are considering MOM they will have a different set of peramiters to Boeing I feel.
As for the plus and plus/plus.It is the first iteration that is the most important.The plus.
Using everything they have got to squeeze every additional mile out of the LR.Perhaps Mk2 blended winglets with 'downlets' a la 380 plus.Perhaps the carbon box section.New wing body fairings? This work may allow them to re look at the work they did15 years ago when offering a 321 stretch (322).Today that would be a 250-255 pax one class aircraft with (just) transcontinental type range.Positioned somewhere between the old 757's and 767's but using 30klbs thrust with an ultra modern engine rather that 55klbs with old oil burners.The fsc difference would be 30%++.
Such an aircraft may box Boeing in somewhat and push them up into an increasingly small segment.
As for the plus/plus.Its so hard to tell.If it is considered inferior to the 797 it will be dead meat.Airbus found this out with the 340 stretch.I fear they may be finding it out again with the 330 NEO versus the 788/9/10.They don't want to make this mistake a third time!Particulary as they will need to replace the 330 family soonish anyrate.(if the 787 family doesn't kill it from one end the 797 will certainly do it from the other.They must confront this reality.I can't see a 320 re-wing being enough.
Better to wait and watch Boeing and come up with a clean sheet in a couple of years time that beats it.Hybrid anyone!

Perhaps the next Airbus moves will be to create a long term successor for the A330 but start with a frame of lower capacity and efficient at lower ranges.

As ever the next moves in this game of chess are interesting to watch.

I am still not sure the market is really there. The MoM seems to covers just too wide a range of expectations that a single option will not cover them all.

WIederling wrote:

Unpleasant effects from loss of laminar flow / stall properties seem to be a major hold back?

Lets say you get ETOPS certification based on the OEI thrust requirement that comes from having laminar flow on the wings.

But, due to small scale debris (chips, insect remains, dirt, etc) accumulated while in-service, you actually have drag X% higher than at time of certification. Is your ETOPS certification still fit for purpose?

StTim wrote:

I am still not sure the market is really there. The MoM seems to covers just too wide a range of expectations that a single option will not cover them all.

+1

I get the feel its more a program looking for a market, rather than a market looking for a program.

StTim wrote:

Perhaps the next Airbus moves will be to create a long term successor for the A330 but start with a frame of lower capacity and efficient at lower ranges.

As ever the next moves in this game of chess are interesting to watch.

I am still not sure the market is really there. The MoM seems to covers just too wide a range of expectations that a single option will not cover them all.

And that kind of contradicts the development of the A330. Customers happily and eagerly went for higher MTOW versions that promised more range, the A330 only took off once it reached 5000nm range and the 787 offers similar range.

Efficient at lower ranges means less overall range, because OEW is what matters the most and a OEW reduction (given similar technology) always comes with a MTOW reduction.

seahawk wrote:

StTim wrote:

Perhaps the next Airbus moves will be to create a long term successor for the A330 but start with a frame of lower capacity and efficient at lower ranges.

As ever the next moves in this game of chess are interesting to watch.

I am still not sure the market is really there. The MoM seems to covers just too wide a range of expectations that a single option will not cover them all.

And that kind of contradicts the development of the A330. Customers happily and eagerly went for higher MTOW versions that promised more range, the A330 only took off once it reached 5000nm range and the 787 offers similar range.

Efficient at lower ranges means less overall range, because OEW is what matters the most and a OEW reduction (given similar technology) always comes with a MTOW reduction.

Which sort of comes to my last point that I am not really sure there is an "MoM" market. There are many desires but they are disparate. This is why I am always astounded at how the Boeing MoM 797 is talked into every airline (and often in large numbers) by some on here.

strfyr51 wrote:

Jeez Guys,
We're going in circles here! What Boeing does should NOT be causing stress at Airbus. What Boeing Does is what Boeing Does!
airbus should seek to improve on the products they make and not worry about what Boeing does. Airbus is already fly by wire for the most part and Boeing is not yet fully digital across their product line as if yet. If you'd bothered to Look? Boeing has the move the B767 planform into the Digital realm with the B797. the B757 and the B737 plans into the Digital realm. Then?! There will be the race to see who does what to whom. Airbus needs to improve and innovate their product line with regard to building their offerings.
Because if they don't?? Boeing will come out with one new model after another and leave Airbus sucking "Hind tit". \the time for call and response is over. Airbus needs to innovate rather than respond.

Yes, the A300/310, A320, A330/40, A380, A400M, A350, A321NEO.. all basically repsonses leaving Airbus behind, they should innovate!

kmz wrote:

Now the B787 has grown into a good a/c and the A330neo can’t even use the opportunities a full B787 production line was supposed to bring

As if Airbus were to be responsible for those engine delays

Of course Airbus says 'there is but we've covered it'(A321 LR).But of course it can only just do 4K and no cargo -with limited 200 pax.So most likely there is 'a' market the question is -how big (in 10-30 years time).Boeing appear to be covering the 757 family and the 767 family but with a hugely more efficient aircraft.Historically that suggests 2,000 aircraft.thats clearly not 5,000.So they must be seeing expansion in this sector.
For anyone not needing 7,000knm range then such an aircraft would steal all 338 and 788 sales.So that's a bit more.

But I do note in recent articles that Boeing are not putting huge emphasis on cargo (ovoid shape compromising this lower area).So (to me) it seems that they must be forecasting that this aircraft will appeal (in the future) to longer routes for LCC's.We know this is starting to happen and indeed Sir T made special mention of it in his recorded interview last week.
Not saying Boeing are right.Simply that this may be their long term thinking.

StTim wrote:

Which sort of comes to my last point that I am not really sure there is an "MoM" market. There are many desires but they are disparate. This is why I am always astounded at how the Boeing MoM 797 is talked into every airline (and often in large numbers) by some on here.

Exactly!

History would suggest airlines will go for the long ranged alternative.

I feel the chances are growing Airbus will launch with a new wing / wingbox, LDG.

EIS somewhere around 2022-23.



Sell / convert 500-800 before EIS and then see how to proceed further in this segment.

Cargo should be relatively OK because more length means more AKH / pallets and the auxiliary fuel tanks are out.

keesje wrote:

I feel the chances are growing Airbus will launch with a new wing / wingbox, LDG.

MLG could be retained. with a scaled up wing the gear position moves down versus the fuselage.

StTim wrote:

I am still not sure the market is really there. The MoM seems to covers just too wide a range of expectations that a single option will not cover them all.

I disagree.

Most families the longer models have a higher MTO to keep most, if not all of the range. CS300 can outfly the CS100 and the 787-9 can outfly the 787-8. a321LR can outfly the A320. This means the longer model needs beefier structure and landing gear for heavier weights and often a uprated engine. Commonality is fairly low, under 80%. This puts up development and sustainment costs.

If the MTO is kept the same across the MOM family you can keep the same structure, landing gear and engines. Think 787-9 and 787-10 which has over 95% commonality. In this comparison the 787-9 is a great long range aircraft, the 787-10 gets a big 25% reduction in range in real life. But the 787-10 ends up being very light per passenger with great CASM on medium and short haul. 787-10 has a massive sales surge at the moment.

This reflects the exact goals of the MOM, they want one longer range model and one shorter ranged model with great CASM. So identical MTO, wing and gear with two or three fuselage lengths can cover this wide range. They could achieve 95% commonality between three lengths. The shrink is aimed at the A330/767 medium haul market. The stretch is aimed at the short haul narrowbody market where it would replace the narrowbodies 2 for 1 on the thickest of routes.

You have two markets covered with one development. This would reduce the development cost per model which again improves the business case.

When the shrink has A332/767 capacity for long haul, the stretch will be offering way more seats than 2 A320/737-8.

seahawk wrote:

When the shrink has A332/767 capacity for long haul, the stretch will be offering way more seats than 2 A320/737-8.

I filled a 4m A321 stretch long haul 3 class (M+) with correct toilet rates, added extra galley and AA style sleeper seats.

178 seats. But I would be more comfortable with a few less.
Crew rests/ seats, dividers/bassinets might eat away more space, 170?

For a similar 2 class A332/767 230-250 seats seems what we see. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/KLM/KLM_Airbus_A330-200.php

But shot haul and long haul use different cabin configuration.

If you for example look at DL. The 767-300 seats around 260 pax, the long haul 767-300ER around 210.

So if you say the shorter version has ~230 seats in long haul 2 class configuration, the longer version for short haul would effectively seat ~330-350 pax.

New wing EIS 2022?? (am assuming new box section,new double bogey MLG and major stretch.....)
Well in that case they better announce it tomorrow!And even that's too late.Oooops forgot -no engine -damn.

Nope.The moment you have to wait for the all new 50klbs thrust geared fan there is all the time in the World.You are forced to work to the Boeing timetable.

But...If you asked a new wing to do far more of the work.ie much lower wing loading far higher aspect ratio.Perhaps,just maybe,you could use the existing GTF engine with one last power bump.Perhaps possible for one stretch but certainly not two.That could remove the time box and offer something substantially different to Boeing.(also cheaper I imagine)

keesje wrote:

I feel the chances are growing Airbus will launch with a new wing / wingbox, LDG.

EIS somewhere around 2022-23.



Sell / convert 500-800 before EIS and then see how to proceed further in this segment.

Cargo should be relatively OK because more length means more AKH / pallets and the auxiliary fuel tanks are out.

I like the ideas, new wing stretched, and newe materials, the cabins size it's ok (slightly bigger than 737 family and that matters). any rumors so far?

parapente wrote:

New wing EIS 2022?? (am assuming new box section,new double bogey MLG and major stretch.....)
Well in that case they better announce it tomorrow!And even that's too late.Oooops forgot -no engine -damn.

Nope.The moment you have to wait for the all new 50klbs thrust geared fan there is all the time in the World.You are forced to work to the Boeing timetable.

But...If you asked a new wing to do far more of the work.ie much lower wing loading far higher aspect ratio.Perhaps,just maybe,you could use the existing GTF engine with one last power bump.Perhaps possible for one stretch but certainly not two.That could remove the time box and offer something substantially different to Boeing.(also cheaper I imagine)

Agree, using the current PW1000 and LEAP as a basis would be required. Around 40k lbs maybe a bit more for single engine out during TO.

seahawk wrote:

When the shrink has A332/767 capacity for long haul, the stretch will be offering way more seats than 2 A320/737-8.

Smaller than that.

The shrink would have A310/762 capacity for 5000+nm and A300/764 capacity for below 4000nm.

An A300 has exactly double the cabin area of a 737-8. So 2 for 1 is accurate.

parapente wrote:

But...If you asked a new wing to do far more of the work.ie much lower wing loading far higher aspect ratio.Perhaps,just maybe,you could use the existing GTF engine with one last power bump.Perhaps possible for one stretch but certainly not two.That could remove the time box and offer something substantially different to Boeing.(also cheaper I imagine)

This is the only way to go. A very small increase in wing volume so empty weight doesnt go up too much if at all. No need for bigger engines. No need for heavier landing gear.

With the A340-600 the wing was given a tapered wing-box insert to increase wing area/fuel capacity, and a 1.6m wing extension. Slat 7 was lengthened appropriately. If its going to fit in 757 gates, it would be the best way to go with the A321LR. Half a metre added to each wing at the root would allow removal of the LD3-45 fuel tanks. Add some big raked winglets and wingspan would be up to 40m.

Empty weight would go up 2T. Removal of the LD3-45 tanks would save 1.5T. So only 500kg added for 10+% more lift. The takeoff and landing speeds would be lower so that automatically gives headroom for a very slight MTO increase up to 100T.

keesje wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Would it be more feasible to replace the A300/310 with a model (A360) using the A350 fuselage with a new wing? Instead of a clean sheet.

i think the A350 fuselage is optimized to carry 350 passengers 9 abreast and LD3s over 6000-7000 NM. Making that competitive for 200-240 passenger 3500NM seems like a weak business case.

Yet some think Boeing's NMA should just be simple shrink of 787 technology, go figure...

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Would it be more feasible to replace the A300/310 with a model (A360) using the A350 fuselage with a new wing? Instead of a clean sheet.

i think the A350 fuselage is optimized to carry 350 passengers 9 abreast and LD3s over 6000-7000 NM. Making that competitive for 200-240 passenger 3500NM seems like a weak business case.

Yet some think Boeing's NMA should just be simple shrink of 787 technology, go figure...

One could use 787 fuselage, systems etc and do a smaller wing, landing gear, range, capacity but it would be a different class of aircraft than A322/757.
As big & expensive as a 787 Overdone / expensive for short haul, more a 767/ A300 class of aircraft.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

i think the A350 fuselage is optimized to carry 350 passengers 9 abreast and LD3s over 6000-7000 NM. Making that competitive for 200-240 passenger 3500NM seems like a weak business case.

Yet some think Boeing's NMA should just be simple shrink of 787 technology, go figure...

One could use 787 fuselage, systems etc and do a smaller wing, landing gear, range, capacity but it would be a different class of aircraft than A322/757.
As big & expensive as a 787 Overdone / expensive for short haul, more a 767/ A300 class of aircraft.

The same result for both A350 and 787 tech as a NMA: Not competitive.

Given Airbus's purchase of the C-Series - I can't see the NMA being anything other than a 7W Ovoid Fuselage so it can be reused for NSA. 8W and 9W are just way too big.

The 8W and 9W solution seems to be an A-Net created Design. I might have missed something but where has there been any information in the press that the solution would be 8W or 9W?

We have seen Boeing patents for the Ovoid 7W and many mentions of a light twin aisle.

Isn't it time to push the Boundaries a bit on Airframe design? The Ovoid 7W twin aisle in Carbon while not easy - makes sense from a weight/size standpoint. Plus the fact that the Carbon skin needs to be thicker than necessary to account for impact loads at single aisle size gives you extra strength to help keep the Fuselage from trying to return to an oval.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but what am I missing? Are we just bored with discussing Single aisle and 7W Ovals so we are exploring larger cross sections?

morrisond wrote:

Given Airbus's purchase of the C-Series - I can't see the NMA being anything other than a 7W Ovoid Fuselage so it can be reused for NSA. 8W and 9W are just way too big.

The 8W and 9W solution seems to be an A-Net created Design. I might have missed something but where has there been any information in the press that the solution would be 8W or 9W?

We have seen Boeing patents for the Ovoid 7W and many mentions of a light twin aisle.

Isn't it time to push the Boundaries a bit on Airframe design? The Ovoid 7W twin aisle in Carbon while not easy - makes sense from a weight/size standpoint. Plus the fact that the Carbon skin needs to be thicker than necessary to account for impact loads at single aisle size gives you extra strength to help keep the Fuselage from trying to return to an oval.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but what am I missing? Are we just bored with discussing Single aisle and 7W Ovals so we are exploring larger cross sections?

I think you are answering the question yourself. At some stage hard nosed Boeing engineers & marketing people will cut through the hype and conclude what's obvious. Better a good 6 or 8 abreast cabin then a half baked heavy in between.

I can see Airbus pursuing a full blown NMA too, if the A330 has run it's course. That always tends to take longer then expected though.

What is up with that fly in the pics?

I think we do owe Boeing some respect here.These are clever guys and one's who have pushed the envelope time and time again -usually getting it right long term.
If anyone knows (the good and the bad) about X7 twins ,they do,it's still being made 40 years on!
If anyone knows about overstretched single aisles (the good and the bad),they do,it's called the 753.

They perceive rightly or wrongly (I suspect the former) a market for a 220-270 seat family with a range of 5nm.
.
Their solution is a (patented) hybrid with the hight of a single aisle and the width of a narrow twin aisle.(Ovoid).Clearly made from carbon composite.
Is this better or worse than a long,circular, double width single aisle,fuse? (Metal).
Clearly they think so.I am sure there are many trade offs.But if that is their conclusion I am minded to believe them.

Perhaps the thing to question most are their original assumptions.If the 'meat' of the MOM is more at the 220-250pax end (double/single class).Then it may well be that their ovoid twin is over egging it.But if the 270 pax element is essential (from their market research).Then their ovoid concept is probably the right answer.
The range would reinforce those divergent possibilities.If optimum range is towards the lower end of the spectrum then again it may favour the single aisle but if longer -5k (some writers have even mentioned 5.5k) then it probably favours the twin aisle.

It's a judgement of Solomon as it's right on the cusp.As above the best first response from Airbus is to own as much of the bottom end as they can without too much investment and maintaining the value of 'family' which Boeing won't have.

Just a layman question, is it possible to have 8 abreast narrowbody , that is 2 rows of 4+4?
As far as efficiency goes that would be unbeatable but the window person would go by 3 people in front of him.

rj777 wrote:

What is up with that fly in the pics?

To get an inkling of size

I am told that no passenger must be more than two seats from an aisle. So 3 at a window and 5 in the centre is the max.

Vladex wrote:

Just a layman question, is it possible to have 8 abreast narrowbody , that is 2 rows of 4+4?
As far as efficiency goes that would be unbeatable but the window person would go by 3 people in front of him.

no more than two seats to pass from any seat to reach an aisle.
that allows 3 seats in a row between fuselage and an aisle
and 6 seats in a row between two aisles.
for a max of 6 across in a single aisle craft.
for a max of 12 across on a twin aisle craft.

My view on the Airbus MOM and possible Airbus family improvements.
I agree with the point that Airbus has to look a what airlines want, and how they can improve their own plane offering. Don't respond to the actions of a competitor (Boeing or CRAIC).
First the current situation and the developments that could happen the coming <2 years.
- Is CSALP going to become a Airbus, Bombardier and Quebec government joint venture?
I assume it does, Airbus will improve their cockpit, to become more common with the C-Series
- A32xNEO is a very good narrow body aircraft, Airlines like it, >60% market share. The A321LR will become a B757 replacement and a small MOM (165pax 4000NM).
It about two years there are four competitors: B737, CSeries; C919 and MC-21. I expect Airbus can maintain it's A32x market share at 60%.
- A330NEO competes with the B787, it's less advanced and airlines prefer the B787. With the move from CEO to NEO the A330 got beter optimised for longer flights.
But as concequence making it heavier and less performing on shorter routs. Airbus has plans to increase the MTOW to 249mT increasing range further.
For shorter range routs Airbus is still offering the A333Regional. (The larger Airbus planes are off topic).
- In this topic we assume Boeing launches a B797 clean sheet MOM. I expect Boeing will use a version of the GEnx for their MOM, possibly the engine could be developed form the GEnx-2B67B used for the B748.
- I expect a MOM will use a 90-106" fan (2,25-2,7m), with 40k-64k lbf engines (180-285kN).

I don't expect a clean sheet design for the Airbus MOM plane. I expect a Aluminium (lithium or composite) frame and CFRP-composit wings. Airbus has two options:
1) A longer A322 and/or a larger wing on the A32xNEO (A325/A326)
2) A smaller wing for the A33xNEO (A335/A336).
Both paths lead to a ICAO code 4D plane.
Airlines will have to make their preference clear to Airbus. Do they want a ~200pax >4000NM plane or a >200Pax 5000NM plane?

What is the maximum flight distance (at subsonic speed) within the 8hour (no-crew rest) flight time?
Is 4k/5k NM achievable without crew rest?

Personally I think the A335 is a beter option. It's a replacement for the (A310) A300 and A330CEO. And also the A330NEO can be improved.
I think there are two drawback to the A330(NEO):
1) The legg of crew rest area's, there is only a lower cargo hold module option and the behind the cockpit pilot module.
2) The nose pitches forward on the ground. The A330F and original A350 concept fixed this by mounting the nose gear lower on the frame.
I hope Airbus will improve the A330NEO by implementing the nose improvement proposed for the A350 concept. This could happen at the same time as the cockpit upgrade. Possibly at the same time as the MTOW boost to 249mT.
The new nose enables a pilot rest area above the nose landing gear.
Possibly a cabin crew rest area can be created inside the rear bulk cargo area. This gives two crew rest options.

The new wing tips for the A330NEO brought the wingspan to the maximum of the 4E box. For the A335 I expect a wing at the maximum of the 4D box, or at the lower end of the 4E box, so about 52m.
The cabin length could range from 48-60m. Seating 300-440 in high density and 200-300 in low density layout. This would be a replacement for the A300 with a larger wing and more range. It requires about 100" engines with ~60lbf thrust.

Lets also drop my A330-10 brain-fart here.
Could a A330NEO MTOW 249mT with the A345 frame length (A339 stretched by 4.3m, to ~68m) be a nice addition to Airbus line up. It's ment as regional plane with 440 seats, or ~6000NM with 300 seats. (I know it will compete with the A359.) list price a little over $300mln?
Should Airbus try to boost MLW for A330 to 200mT?
The higher MTOW & MLW and new nose could be nice for a A330NEO Freighter. I don't see a A350F happening.

WIederling wrote:

Vladex wrote:

Just a layman question, is it possible to have 8 abreast narrowbody , that is 2 rows of 4+4?
As far as efficiency goes that would be unbeatable but the window person would go by 3 people in front of him.

no more than two seats to pass from any seat to reach an aisle.
that allows 3 seats in a row between fuselage and an aisle
and 6 seats in a row between two aisles.
for a max of 6 across in a single aisle craft.
for a max of 12 across on a twin aisle craft.

It's an outdated rule especially for narrowbody short flights .

So that means that narrowbodies will always have standard 6 seats abreast and any innovation about it is waste of time so all this talk about MOM and others is just imaginary.

Thought I would share my thoughts on MOM and related issues from the business side of the equation. First of all I think Boeing will launch a 797 initiative. Secondly I believe an Airbus response, if there is any, will be similar to the 787/A350. First Airbus will argue they don't need to respond, but it the 797 shows any sign of success they will scramble to find the resources to respond and become and also ran. The lack of resources will slow the process.

The one area that Boeing crushes Airbus is in profitability. Boeing's FCF (free cash flow) is many times better than Airbus. There is simply no way Airbus can compete with Boeing on new investment until it becomes more profitable.

rj777 wrote:

What is up with that fly in the pics?

It's their watermark. They create original content of a high enough quality that someone is going to eventually claim it as their own or it is going to be confused for official Airbus design studies. The watermark protects them in that scenario.