|
Post by airboche on Mar 1, 2016 10:54:16 GMT 1
Some bigger A350 variant might be a good pair with some future A380neo. Like 767 and 747-400 were for many years. Why not wait for the right engines and make it a real killer aircraft? Just wait for the 777X specs and performance and top them.
Not sure with the weak asian situation if we really need the current race for big twins? Better relax and wait and come up with some real cool configuration.
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Mar 1, 2016 12:46:08 GMT 1
That reminds me, I was talking to someone from Rolls Royce at the SG Airshow and on the subject of future growth of the TrentXWB he said (something along the lines of); If Airbus or Boeing wanted a larger engine we could probably push the -97 around 5% [1.05 x 97 = 101.85], anymore and we'd offer a new engine.
One a side note, he also said they'll probably do a 'glory run' of the engine and run it up to 120 pounds of thrust to see how much thrust the engine could actually produce but at those thrust levels, the engine would not be economical to run.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Mar 1, 2016 12:48:33 GMT 1
I believe the current limit on the -97 is 103 klbf.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 1, 2016 12:50:42 GMT 1
Not sure with the weak asian situation if we really need the current race for big twins? Better relax and wait and come up with some real cool configuration. Airbus has the advantage of talking to airlines. They are not doing any guess-work, they will not launch a project if they cannot see a sizable market.
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Mar 1, 2016 13:00:22 GMT 1
So what happened to projected A380 demand then?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 1, 2016 13:52:19 GMT 1
So what happened to projected A380 demand then? Airbus had planned to keep costs low enough for the programme to break even after about 250 deliveries (freighters included). They are almost there, even without the freighter version, but a flawed execution caused costs to surge, delayed the programme and wreaked havoc with the plans. When the aircraft actually became available to customers, the market had changed : the 2008 economic crisis and the following downturn made customers risk-adverse, growth anticipations were reduced, more and more airlines successfully introduced very dense configurations (10-abreast 777s) instead of VLAs. The only saving grace came from an unexpected major customer, EK. The bottom line is that introducing an entirely new aircraft size, designed to address a new market segment during the next thirty years, is a much more risky undertaking than making a simple stretch of an existing type.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Mar 1, 2016 16:48:39 GMT 1
That reminds me, I was talking to someone from Rolls Royce at the SG Airshow and on the subject of future growth of the TrentXWB he said (something along the lines of); If Airbus or Boeing wanted a larger engine we could probably push the -97 around 5% [1.05 x 97 = 101.85], anymore and we'd offer a new engine. One a side note, he also said they'll probably do a 'glory run' of the engine and run it up to 120 pounds of thrust to see how much thrust the engine could actually produce but at those thrust levels, the engine would not be economical to run. Some nice bit of exclusive info there. I like the 'glory run' experiment, but I'd like to see how far they can push the engine till it all comes apart! As for the 5% more thrust, is he saying that it can be done with the existing engine as it is? And what does he mean by 'new engine'? A completely new one or can they just use the same basic core and grow the fan size along with some other adjustments?
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Mar 1, 2016 16:55:37 GMT 1
Yes, the XWB-97 engine has some margin built in. However, a higher trust will also result in a slightly larger fuel consumption.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Mar 1, 2016 17:05:45 GMT 1
Yes, the XWB-97 engine has some margin built in. However, a higher trust will also result in a slightly larger fuel consumption. I would not have thought the extra fuel consumption would be that great ? As the extra thrust is only needed for takeoff and the initial climb out, so only a small percentage of the total flight time.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Mar 1, 2016 17:19:19 GMT 1
No, hence I said 'slightly larger'. I believe SFC could drop about 1%.
|
|