Aviation24.be

Ok thanks Regi, appreciate it.

I just wonder if they were going to re-engine at Rekkof (hypothetically) why stick with an engine that would be previous generation after GTF (BR-710) and not use that GTF right away? Perhaps because of their closer ties with RR and there was less to gain for P&W?

I first tried to give a decent answer. But that was called dandy. Thank you.

It's an expression, if you take offence to a not lightly intended remark then so be it.

So you repeated your question , which was posed in such a way that there is only one way to answer: yes or no .
So I chose my ...

Then again the design of the original 737 started in 1964.

regi wrote:NO

Nice to see this post is as comprehensively argumented as the previous one.

That's all nice and dandy but my question was: Looking purely from a technical viewpoint (excluding other factors, like credibility, production infrastructure etc.) do you reckon this airframe would be competitive with those engines, otherwise made up to date and the mentioned (or other) capacities?

Looking purely from a technical viewpoint (excluding other factors, like credibility, production infrastructure etc.) do you reckon this airframe would be competitive with those engines, otherwise made up to date and the mentioned (or other) capacities?

EDIT: If any one has a source for the weight ...

I know it's just helpless dreaming, but just imagine a Fokker F90 and F120 fitted with the PW1200G GTF for the Mitsubishi regional jet, the thrust matches perfectly. The F90 1.54m shorter than the F100 would stay just under the 100 seats, while the F120, 4.62m longer than the F90, would seat close ...

That is almost what the Chinese did with that new regional jet of theirs. They had all that MD-80 tooling lying around. Except it's still a jet. But I guess you might as well make a turboprop MD-80 clone then, if you want a 5-abreast layout.

Except AFAIK the MD-80 (and related designs) are also ...

Rekkof will never fly.
We have gone through that subject numerous times and it is utterly useless to even come back on the subject.

I'm not talking about Rekkof, I'm talking about the fact that with current and future fuel prices turboprops are probably becoming sensible in 5 and even 6-abreast ...

All the stuff with Rekkof is nice and dandy, but with current and future fuel prices wouldn't a turbopropped 5-abreast fuselage have a much more distinct and lucrative niche?

This plane would have a fuselage based on the F100 cross section, also using it's nose/cockpit, T-tail and some of it's ...

I don't know if this is technically possible considering ground clearance or general systems or if it otherwise makes sense, but what about re-engining the E3-sentry AWACS with the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G? The current Pratt and Whitney TF33-PW-100A engines are prehistoric, with high noise, fuel ...

You're right all that has been done, but for two different versions of the aircraft. There's a lot more to using different components than just swapping pieces in and out. As an example the 747-I is just a lengthened version of the 400 but still required flight testing, recertification by the FAA ...

This information page from Boeing should shed some light on your questions, also try Wikipedia for further comparisons, as well the wing replacement would require a complete resesign of the wing box, landing gear, and various other sundry items, very expensive!

http://www.boeing.com/commercial ...

I was wondering what limits the KC767 fuel offload? Wouldn't it be possible to use the 767-200ER yet with the larger wings of the 767-400ER? So you would get the lower weight and better rotation of the 200ER, yet with the higher lifting capability of the 400ER wings? Although still limited cargo ...

Why would Airbus design a new jet with 4 engines? The new A350-1000 will be in the 773 and A346 range, won't it? It will be with 2 engines. Above that, you'll have the A380series, with 4 engines.
4 engines on anything less than an A380 (or B747) will not be done anymore.

That's my point it won't ...

woops wrong button, can be deleted.

It would still mean leaving the most important part of the market (A330-787) all to Boeing, since it is obvious an (updated) A330 can't compete with the 787.

Well agree, that an A330NG would not fully compete with the 787, however it could still be able to get a decent share of the market based on ...

A350 program is not only XWB, afaik. But what bothers me most, is what you pointed out - it will compete not only with 787/777, but with their own 330/340 as well. A bit odd... but perhaps i'm missing sth.

Well the A340 slowly strarted died after the introduction of the GE90 engine, but they are ...

Noone has a opinion on this and care to share it?

Seeing how well the A330 is still selling, an updated version with new engines etc. like originally suggested might still be able to keep some marketshare.

I also remember the comments that the A350 you can just remove a damaged panel for a permanent fix! You are going to remove 1/6 of your fuselage, or are you going to patch it back to its original or better strength? Call it Leahy spin.

Better 1/6th than the whole fuselage?

Also, keep in mind ...