|
Post by addasih on Jun 16, 2015 15:56:34 GMT 1
But for the 787 program the base line was 787-9 not -10 so -8 is shrink and -10 is simple stretch I believe I read some where
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jun 16, 2015 16:00:01 GMT 1
AFAIK the 787-8 is the baseline model.
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Jun 16, 2015 16:04:57 GMT 1
I always thought of -9 as the base model, too. Anything else would not make a lot of sense, because no one in their right mind would further shrink the -8. But be that as it may, it's not about shrinks, stretches or double stretches, it's about performance. If you can make it work, it doesn't matter if it's a straight stretch or the 3rd stretch.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jun 16, 2015 16:14:29 GMT 1
It seems that both A and B are struggling to sell their quadjets. DO you think it would be possible to make a twinjet version of the A380? I know each engine would have to produce ~150,000 lb of thrust each but do you think it could be done? At some point, we're probably going to see a Twin VLA, but not in the near future. The A380's problem is not that it's a Quad, but rather that its engines were "frankensteined" to save cost. The TrentXWB has some 7% better TFSC, the RR Advance promises to be some 10-12% better. This tells you how conservatively these engines were built. There was a longer post about this somewhere, I'll dig it up if anyone's interested. The second problem is sheer size. This would of course not go away with a Twin VLA. The rumour has been that the A320 successor will be called A30X. 2030 is a long while away, but I don't think Airbus will come up with a successor to the A320 then. If you had to, what would you change, really? NEO it, sure, maybe rewing it, but the fuselage? Maybe put some CFRP here and there for good measure, but keep the overall shape and design. What's looking to be an increasingly hot topic is the Middle of Market (MoM) prospects - an airplane sized between the narrowbody line up and the smallest widebody available today to replace the 757/762/A310/A300 market. But at this point, Boeing seems to be more pressed to find a solution than Airbus is. Another possible interesting prospect is an A350-1100 stretch which Airbus says are carrying out studies on. The problem with the MoM airplane is that you need to make a decision as to whether you want it to a narrowbody or a widebody. The space between 200 and 300 passengers is a weak spot for both designs, a narrowbody would be too long, a widebody would be too short. The A350-1100 sounds interesting, but it really needs to be seen if it could deliver acceptable performance for both range and take offs. Acceptable range affords you nothing if you can only use it from 4km runways at ISA-15. If it works out, great, but it just feels like that "one stretch too far". Someone has to be bold, who will take the gamble and produce the first airliner without real windows ( just TV screens instead) ? It saves loads of weight and and makes the fuselage easy to build and cheaper !
|
|
|
Post by Shadow123 on Jun 16, 2015 16:17:09 GMT 1
I don't think this is a opportunity because of Safety reasons...
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jun 16, 2015 16:34:02 GMT 1
I don't think this is a opportunity because of Safety reasons... Passengers don't escape out of the windows ! Why does a pax have to look out of Glass ? They can just look at a screen (where the window used to be ) that is showing extractly what they would see thru a window (a vertual window) Still have windows in emergency exits and the cockpit obviously ! What safety reason is there for a pax to have to see out of a window ? They can't do anything !
|
|
|
Post by Shadow123 on Jun 16, 2015 16:40:58 GMT 1
But why have you to Open the shields for landing? I thought thats for safty reasons to Provide a overfiew for the flightatendant in emergancy. Would be not so good with damaged screens Or with no cabin electricity
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jun 16, 2015 16:58:58 GMT 1
But why have you to Open the shields for landing? I thought thats for safty reasons to Provide a overfiew for the flightatendant in emergancy. Would be not so good with damaged screens Or with no cabin electricity I get your point, but personally I don't think it makes a difference, as long as the flight attendants are in seats by the doors / exits with real windows during landing and take off that's OK by me. I think the opening of window shields / combined with dimming of the cabin lights is to get your eyes used to the natural light levels (or lack of it at night) ?
|
|
|
Post by peter on Jun 16, 2015 18:41:05 GMT 1
I always thought of -9 as the base model, too. Anything else would not make a lot of sense, because no one in their right mind would further shrink the -8. Well, there was supposed to be a shrink/shrunk/shrunken 787 The 787-3 was actually ordered by Japan Air Lines. Registrations were also allocated. But Boeing cancelled it, realizing sales would be bad...
|
|
|
Post by peter on Jun 16, 2015 18:45:35 GMT 1
AFAIK the 787-8 is the baseline model. It is!
|
|