philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 19, 2016 8:10:25 GMT 1
I feel that Airbus should consider a Mark II (or III?) version of the -1000 that uses the design improvements of the prospective -1100 to make it a simple separate family of 2 large twins sharing a common engine etc. Isn't it early to consider a mark II version of an airplane the first copy of which still is in FAL ?  I am sure the -1000 was built with the possibility of a further stretch in mind. No need to change it in my opinion. [ The -900 can stay as it is. The -1000 is good as it is and has no direct competitor [/quote][/i] Aren't these remarks in full opposition to the above ones ?  |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by s543 on Feb 19, 2016 8:38:24 GMT 1
They might have just done that (having the idea of 1100 in mind while designing the changes to 1000) and now are going "shy" out with the idea. Also the difference in trust of the 1000 engines to 900 seems bigger than really needed so..... And we do not know how much reserve there is for some minor tweaking to achieve even more trust. Concerning the sales of 1000 - Taliesin - you might be right - but still compared to the 900 the numbers are low  Only time will tell |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 19, 2016 9:43:49 GMT 1
I feel that Airbus should consider a Mark II (or III?) version of the -1000 that uses the design improvements of the prospective -1100 to make it a simple separate family of 2 large twins sharing a common engine etc. The -900 can stay as it is. The -1000 is good as it is and has no direct competitor (the 778 is a different machine for a different purpose even though they are similar in size) but standardising the build with the prospective -1100 can simplify things and costs. There will be a cost to do it, but I'd bite the bullet and do it now as it's still early enough in terms of orders and outlook. Boeing went through 3 different builds in about a decade for the 777 family before settling on the 77W/L configuration. Just a thought. I don't believe the market is big enough for so many aircraft types. We used to have A330s and 777s, now we have A330neo's, 787s, A350s and 777X. There is more fragmentation then ever before and the more types you introduce, the less some will sell. Boeing predicts 3520 new aircraft in the 300-400 seat market for the next 20 years. That's 176 aircraft per year. Now spit that between the A350-900, 787-10, 777-8, 777-9, A350-1000 and A350-1100. Hence I believe another stretch will have to be a low investment, because I think the ROI will be small. |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 19, 2016 9:46:01 GMT 1
With the -1100, I see several problems, the wings and landing gear are probably severely MTOW restricted, the fuselage would be so long that on take off, the plane would be restricted in its rotation angle. Both aspects can severely hamper take off performance, depending on how bad it is. As for the landing gear, A350 program head Didier Evrard said the following: aviationweek.com/awin/airbus-studying-feasibility-double-stretched-a350 |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 19, 2016 12:49:44 GMT 1
As regards the A350 MLG, I wish to point out that Evrard spoke of its 'potential', not its capacity 'as is'. In my opinion, Evrard meant that Airbus had designed in a possible reinforcement of the MLG. So, it could be done, but it would imply a loss of commonality with existing sub-types.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 19, 2016 13:08:14 GMT 1
Of course, hence he said "potential in the tens of tons".
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Feb 19, 2016 15:38:36 GMT 1
I feel that Airbus should consider a Mark II (or III?) version of the -1000 that uses the design improvements of the prospective -1100 to make it a simple separate family of 2 large twins sharing a common engine etc. That was my thought as well, before I realised that this train has long since left the station. It would certainly make a lot of sense, but to re-develop a Mark 2 -1000 just so it has more commonality with the -1100 just does not seem to make much sense to me at this point. The only thing that would make sense from an engineering point would be to make the -1000 a simple shrink from the -1100, but that would probably produce a lot of headaches with the -1000s you already sold, because every sales contract comes with certain guarantees that you probably can't satisfy if your -1000 carries around additional weight and capabilities built in for the -1100. As regards the A350 MLG, I wish to point out that Evrard spoke of its 'potential', not its capacity 'as is'. In my opinion, Evrard meant that Airbus had designed in a possible reinforcement of the MLG. So, it could be done, but it would imply a loss of commonality with existing sub-types. That really doesn't matter. As long as the airframe was built with certain capabilities in mind, it should be easy. If the -1100 needs a stronger MLG, it's really only a question of designing and building it. The real headache starts when you're trying to do things the airframe was not designed for, like say put an 80" engine on the 737  |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 26, 2016 12:58:54 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Feb 26, 2016 13:10:35 GMT 1
Perhaps Jkkw has access to the article. Unfortunately I don't have access  . Although a high gross weight version of an A350 being ordered by PAL is consistent with what's reported by the Centre for Aviation (CAPA). |
|
kronus
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,412
|
Post by kronus on Feb 29, 2016 7:14:38 GMT 1
|
|
. Although a high gross weight version of an A350 being ordered by PAL is consistent with what's reported by the Centre for Aviation (CAPA).