http://www.flightinternational.com/Arti ... ntest.html
I wonder what this is all about. Qatar is reconsidering its decision on 20 B777's, supposedly to review improvements in the A340-500/600 that Airbus is undertaking.
I think the reason has to be more than the incremental improvements to the A340. Airbus would have surely proposed those improvements during the original competition. Could Qatar be haggling for a better price? Or did the Airbus fuel rebate offer peak their interest?
Anyone hear anything?
Qatar reopens widebody competition (B777 vs. A340)
Moderator: Latest news team
Qatar reopens widebody competition (B777 vs. A340)
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
This is perhaps a stupid question, but would it not be possible to equip the A340 with two engines instead of four? The Trent 8104 (I'm sure it could be developed into a production engine) or the GE90 is available with double the thrust rating of the Trent 556 used on the -600. The Trent 900 has been stuck on an A340 for testing purposes, and the 8104 has the same diameter, so the thing should be able to fit there. Not sure about the GE90, as it's larger.
The A330 tanker uses the A340 wing, so no problem flying that wing with only two engines.
I'm sure that Airbus engineers have thought about this, so why didn't they do such a thing?
The A330 tanker uses the A340 wing, so no problem flying that wing with only two engines.
I'm sure that Airbus engineers have thought about this, so why didn't they do such a thing?
Airbus is proposing the A340-600E "enhanced" which is the A340 with Trent 1000/1700(?) engines and other A350 technology (lithium-something fuselage, new wing etc.). As far as I know they do not talk about the A340-600HGW.
For me it is just another turn in the game: first, Boeing builds an all-new plane with Genx and t1000 engines. Then, Airbus takes some of these concepts and introduces an A330 successor, then Boeing takes a couple of these improvements to launch the 747-8I ...
Who is surprised that Airbus offers a A340 variant in a similar way as Boeing offers the new 747?
-lr.
PS. http://www.flightinternational.com/Arti ... +777+.html
For me it is just another turn in the game: first, Boeing builds an all-new plane with Genx and t1000 engines. Then, Airbus takes some of these concepts and introduces an A330 successor, then Boeing takes a couple of these improvements to launch the 747-8I ...
Who is surprised that Airbus offers a A340 variant in a similar way as Boeing offers the new 747?
-lr.
PS. http://www.flightinternational.com/Arti ... +777+.html
8O If this is true, then I'm a monkey's uncle!earthman wrote: The A330 tanker uses the A340 wing, so no problem flying that wing with only two engines.
Is this really true? I can't even begin to imagine that the load paths for the wing and wing box of a 4-engine airplane can be used in a 2-engine plane. Even offering a different engine for a airplane requires extensive engineering and certification because the characteristics of each engine is different.By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
Well, Airbus boasts that 'the A330-200 wing shares the same design structure including the strengthened mounting points as that of the four-engine A340 aircraft.' They boast this, because they use the outboard mounting points to hook up air-to-air refueling pods on the A330 MRTT.
Not exactly the same wing, but close enough. Should be fairly trivial then to mount two engines instead of four on the A340.
Not exactly the same wing, but close enough. Should be fairly trivial then to mount two engines instead of four on the A340.
-
tolipanebas
- Posts: 2442
- Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00
Yes it it true, so you must be a monkey uncle then!
Serioulsy now, the A330 wing is indeed the very same wing (including all the mounting points for 2 additional engines) as the A340-200/-300 wing.
At the time of launch of the A330/A340 program, the very fact that both planes shared one and the same wing was seen as an engineering marvel simply unheared of before.
Strange that only 15 years later, so few people still know about it.
However, the A340-500/-600, got an entirely new wing to cope with the much higher weight of these versions and thus no longer shares the same wing design.
The A350 too will get its own wing, so that in effect, the original versions of the A330 and A340 indeed shared the same wing, but the NG versions (if you can consider the A350 the A330NG) wont, because they have grown further apart.
Serioulsy now, the A330 wing is indeed the very same wing (including all the mounting points for 2 additional engines) as the A340-200/-300 wing.
At the time of launch of the A330/A340 program, the very fact that both planes shared one and the same wing was seen as an engineering marvel simply unheared of before.
Strange that only 15 years later, so few people still know about it.
However, the A340-500/-600, got an entirely new wing to cope with the much higher weight of these versions and thus no longer shares the same wing design.
The A350 too will get its own wing, so that in effect, the original versions of the A330 and A340 indeed shared the same wing, but the NG versions (if you can consider the A350 the A330NG) wont, because they have grown further apart.
If I were Boeing or Airbus, I would not be worried about QR orders. I don't think these guys will be big enough to use all these seats in a few years time.Other Asian, European,or Australian companies will not let these guys eat their lunch and will not just roll dead. Fair business practices or not, this is not the issue.
Read carefully
If the customer wants delivery end of 07 as stated in the interview, then AI cannot propose any enhanced version of the A340 for this timeframe. If delivery was 2011 or later that might be possible. With most of the large orders already decided the remaining market is too small for AI to launch a $2B program. If the delivery date quoted is accurate this is a pure commercial issue.
Possible? Yes. - Economical? No way...earthman wrote:This is perhaps a stupid question, but would it not be possible to equip the A340 with two engines instead of four? The Trent 8104 (I'm sure it could be developed into a production engine) or the GE90 is available with double the thrust rating of the Trent 556 used on the -600. The Trent 900 has been stuck on an A340 for testing purposes, and the 8104 has the same diameter, so the thing should be able to fit there. Not sure about the GE90, as it's larger.
The A330 tanker uses the A340 wing, so no problem flying that wing with only two engines.
I'm sure that Airbus engineers have thought about this, so why didn't they do such a thing?
As said before, the load paths are different. Not so much a problem in a military version since 1. there are the pods (which are still much lighter than an engine) and 2. the military is not that sensitive to fuel consumption. Airlines are.
I am not quite sure if the wing is the same, tough I know that many other parts are the same which makes sense in an aircraft family.
however, for a new aircraft, I doubt it would mae much sense. More common parts means lower maintenance costs and lower construction costs. On the other hands, it also means that there are aircraft out there which carry much more material around than they need - in times of high fuel prices that also hurts, especially over a longer period of time.
Regards, Bernhard
-
chornedsnorkack
- Posts: 428
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
This also means that Airbus 330-200 and 330-300 have reinforcements somewhere around their wing which are not doing any job because they work in 340-200 and 340-300. Nevertheless 330 seems to compete quite well with Boeing 767, at least.n5528p wrote:Possible? Yes. - Economical? No way...earthman wrote:This is perhaps a stupid question, but would it not be possible to equip the A340 with two engines instead of four? The Trent 8104 (I'm sure it could be developed into a production engine) or the GE90 is available with double the thrust rating of the Trent 556 used on the -600. The Trent 900 has been stuck on an A340 for testing purposes, and the 8104 has the same diameter, so the thing should be able to fit there. Not sure about the GE90, as it's larger.
The A330 tanker uses the A340 wing, so no problem flying that wing with only two engines.
I'm sure that Airbus engineers have thought about this, so why didn't they do such a thing?
As said before, the load paths are different. Not so much a problem in a military version since 1. there are the pods (which are still much lighter than an engine) and 2. the military is not that sensitive to fuel consumption. Airlines are.
Now Airbus already has the original 332/333/342/343 wing, suitable for either 2 or 4 engines and carrying MTOW 230 tons with 2 engines (both 332 and 333) or 275 tons with 4 engines (both 342 and 343). Also, Airbus has the 345/346 wing, which has so far been used only with 4 engines, MTOW 380 tons for both 345 and 346.
By 2010, Airbus is to come out with 358/9 wing, initially having 2 engines and carrying 245 tons MTOW.
So, can either 345/6 or 358/9 wings practically be modified to carry the other number of engines?
It would be nice if they offered the same plane both as a twinjet and a quad, preferably in a reconfigurable manner (like you can switch engine manufacturer with the 787). Now that would be quite a remarkable plane.
Of course it would mean that if the plane flies with two large engines, it lugs along the unneeded mount points, reinforcements and other engine infrastructure for the outboard engines, and when flying with four engines the inboard mountpoints have excessive structural strength (because they still have to be able to handle the bigger and heavier engines used for the twin configuration).
I'm sure they could fly the thing to an airshow using the twin configuration, then reconfigure it to quad at the show and fly away with four. Nice marketing stunt.
And yes, I know such flexibility would probably reduce the efficency of the plane, but it's still a nice idea.
Of course it would mean that if the plane flies with two large engines, it lugs along the unneeded mount points, reinforcements and other engine infrastructure for the outboard engines, and when flying with four engines the inboard mountpoints have excessive structural strength (because they still have to be able to handle the bigger and heavier engines used for the twin configuration).
I'm sure they could fly the thing to an airshow using the twin configuration, then reconfigure it to quad at the show and fly away with four. Nice marketing stunt.
And yes, I know such flexibility would probably reduce the efficency of the plane, but it's still a nice idea.
what's the point to have 2 engines sometimes and then have 4 at other times?
at this moment, if they can take 2 engines out of the A345/A346E, Airbus will of course do it because it will be less thirsty and no matter how much oil drops, it won't be cheap enough so that oil prices won't matter...
I don't think 2 engines will be eliminated on the upcoming A345/346E in 2011.
at this moment, if they can take 2 engines out of the A345/A346E, Airbus will of course do it because it will be less thirsty and no matter how much oil drops, it won't be cheap enough so that oil prices won't matter...
I don't think 2 engines will be eliminated on the upcoming A345/346E in 2011.
There are several points to it. First of all, you don't have to worry about ETOPS routes, which could give you more direct flightpaths, reducing fuel burn (don't know how much of an advantage this could be). Secondly, Virgin Atlantic claims that some passengers actually prefer 4 engine planes over 2 engine planes, so this could be a reason to have 4 engines.
-
chornedsnorkack
- Posts: 428
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
Another point would be takeoffs... The official, legal permitted runway lengths and takeoff weights are designed so that there would be safety margins if one engine fails - even if the aircraft is ETOPS and one engine out is demonstrated to be rare. And the certification safety requirements with one engine out for quads are more restrictive than for twins - a quad must, at the actual takeoff weight used, be able to climb at 0,5% with gear down, 3,0% with gear up and wing in takeoff configuration and 1,7% in clean configuration, even if there actually are no obstacles ahead, whereas a twin is allowed to have 0,0% (level at 35 feet), 2,4 % and 1,2 % respectively. So, a quad at its MTOW can safely fly from airports that have obstacles/terrain underneath the bottom of its takeoff funnel, whereas a twin would have much lower funnel at MTOW and it would have to have lower than MTOW so as to clear those obstacles.earthman wrote:There are several points to it. First of all, you don't have to worry about ETOPS routes, which could give you more direct flightpaths, reducing fuel burn (don't know how much of an advantage this could be). Secondly, Virgin Atlantic claims that some passengers actually prefer 4 engine planes over 2 engine planes, so this could be a reason to have 4 engines.
Wonder how much MTOW and payload/range capacity a 777-200LR actually has, if it has to fly from a takeoff funnel as steep as that of 340-500.