Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Francoflier wrote:Airbus will probably sit on their hands until Boeing finalises the MOM/797 design.
Channex757 wrote:You are all looking at this from the wrong angle. Aircraft design is increasingly driven by engine design and availability. The next generation of aircraft will use more exotic engines than ever before, with new materials and ways of managing airflow. There could even be breakthrough electric hybrid engines in the foreseeable future.
Any manufacturer going for a clean sheet today is going to lock themselves into older motors. There needs to be a consolidation period now, whilst the engine makers firm up their offerings. That might not be for the next 5-10 years. Ultrafan, the high thrust GTF, and GE's CMC wizardry with small, hot cores. Even the proposed electric fans with a turbine generator!
seahawk wrote:(-) short and stubby is not good for your aerodynamics.
Antarius wrote:The A360 should be a flying sphere...
B777LRF wrote:seahawk wrote:(-) short and stubby is not good for your aerodynamics.
Eh, actually, that's exactly what it is!
tealnz wrote:Can anyone actually quantify the drag penalty of an A310-type fuselage? The laws of physics haven’t changed since the A300 and A310 were built...
Francoflier wrote:So long and thin is better than fat and short...
...note that I'm only talking about aircraft fuselages here.
Francoflier wrote:tealnz wrote:Can anyone actually quantify the drag penalty of an A310-type fuselage? The laws of physics haven’t changed since the A300 and A310 were built...
It is not about the absolute drag value, it's about the drag/weight ratio.
For a given volume, a longer and thinner fuselage will have a lower drag than a shorter but wider one. (very simplistically speaking)
So long and thin is better than fat and short...
...note that I'm only talking about aircraft fuselages here.
seahawk wrote:B777LRF wrote:seahawk wrote:(-) short and stubby is not good for your aerodynamics.
Eh, actually, that's exactly what it is!
No, you get a bad ratio of drag to cabin space.
seahawk wrote:I never will understand the wait for Boeing logic. To you go to the board of directors and say: "There is a market for about X000 planes that is not served by a fitting product today, so we decided to wait until the competition enters the market so that we can do the same and split the market?"
If there is demand for a 757 replacement with TATL range a A322 with a new wing is a no brainer, so either they will launch soon, or they have found no airline customers for this, which imho does not bode to well for the MoM either.
LightningZ71 wrote:My feelings on this are to focus on the markets at hand with a low risk project. The A319 is not doing well in the market. The A320 is still performing well. The A321 is better than anyone imagined. Focus on what they are doing well and improve it. The next project should be a next-gen A320 series. Take the A321 as the base model and optimize the wing for that, with improvements in design and materials. Replace the existing A320 frame length with one that's about 2-3 rows longer. Add an A322 that's about 4-5 rows longer than the A321. With the weight and drag savings from the redone wing, the A321 will gaine comfortable trans-atlantic range. The A322 will be the intermediate range point to point hauler. The A320 will be the long and thin market option. By the time this comes out, the existing NEO engines will be in their mid-life revision phase and will offer even better fuel burn and wing life than they currently do. Build thousands and profit!
B777LRF wrote:seahawk wrote:B777LRF wrote:
Eh, actually, that's exactly what it is!
No, you get a bad ratio of drag to cabin space.
Drag to cabin space ratio? I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but aerodynamically a short/stubby fuselage is still more efficient than a long/slender ditto. Hence a 737-600 is less draggy than a -900. Might not make the airline more money, but that's economics and not physics.
Swadian wrote:Maybe they'll make a giant narrowbody the size and range of the DC-8 Super 60s, with composite materials and a GTF engine. That'll fit in nicely between the A321 and A350.
reidar76 wrote:There is one option for Airbus that has not been mentioned, that is, a new aircraft smaller than the A320 family. The A318 and A319 are not selling. Airbus subsidiary, ATR, is still the largest turboprop manufacturer, but the ATR design is old, so that position might be lost if nothing is done.
There is increased competition from Bombardier, Embraer and Mitsubishi in this market segment. I think Airbus might be considering a clean sheet, maybe hybrid-electric, all composite, short range turboprop, probably around 70 to 130 seats (1-class). Remember that nearly all delivered A320neo aircraft are now configured +/- 180 seats. Should Airbus leave the market below 180 seats to the competition?
Please note at fuel-efficiency is way better for turboprops than for turbojet engines.
CRHoward wrote:I don't see Airbus building a direct competitor with the 797. If Boeing does build a small wide body with 7 abreast economy seating, I would expect Airbus to build a slightly larger 8 abreast aircraft fitting above the 797 and below the 787-9. Boeing will be all in with the 797 for 2024 and the NSA for 2030. They would be unable to check Airbus. Building the a322 would be another temporary stop gap effort by Airbus. The next generation of narrow body aircraft will quickly displace it. I'm sure Boeing would like to see Airbus throw away this opportunity by committing valuable resources to the a322 and the a380neo.