Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 17, 2013 3:47:53 GMT 1
This thread got me wondering...  a380.boards.net/thread/404/msn-0925Could Airbus have done an A330-500/600 instead of doing the A340 variants? I know that there was a proposed but cancelled A330 shrink model called the -500, but let's ignore that here and talk in respect of the A340 stretches. And where would Airbus stand today if that ever happened?  |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Apr 17, 2013 8:16:58 GMT 1
Could Airbus have done an A330-500/600 instead of doing the A340 variants? Yes although it wouldn't have been much harder than doing an A340-500-600. Firstly they would need an engine powerful enough, sure they could have used the GE-90 however I don't think the variant for the 77W was ready at the time when the A346 had its first flight. Also by sharing the GE-90 with Airbus, GE's relation with Boeing would probably not be at the strength it is in today. If Airbus was able to get a more powerful engine, the next problem would be ground clearance. With RR Trent 700 engines(fan diameter of 2.47m), an A330 at maximum ramp weight would have an engine ground clearance of 72cm. On the A346, the inner engines have and even lower ground clearance at 52cm with the Trent 500s having a fan diameter identical to that of the Trent 700. In comparison, the fan diameter of the Trent XWB is 2.9m and the GE-90 is 3.2. Even if Airbus hung the engines closer to the wing and used a flattened the nacelle like on the 737s, the A330-500/600 would struggle to have adequate ground clearance without redesigning the wing/landing gear or sacrificing the engine's bypass ratio and thus creating a more inefficient engine. Finally the aircraft would require either and extra set of landing gear (such as on the A340) or to increase the number of wheel on each of the main gear to 6 (such as on the 777 or A350-1000) to handle the extra weight of the aircraft. If airbus was prepared to do such extensive engineering on the A330 then yes, it would have been possible. However at the time, ETOPS was still in its infancy, fuel prices weren't as high as they are today and the A340 was a more suitable platform for development. where would Airbus stand today if that ever happened?  Certainly they would much better placed to handle the competition of the 77W, especially if they were able to maintain the 2 year head start the A345/6 had on the 77W. However the engineering required (see above) would have driven up costs to both develop and operate the aircraft. Furthermore the aircraft would not have the same capacity as the 77W as can be seen with the A346 as despite being longer, the narrower body of the A330/A340 was designed to be configured 8 abreast or 9 abreast in 'sardine' situations whereas the 777 was designed to be a 9 abreast and even 10 abreast (which in terms of seat width is wider than 9 abreast on the A330) |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Apr 17, 2013 10:12:58 GMT 1
Even if Airbus hung the engines closer to the wing and used a flattened the nacelle like on the 737s, the A330-500/600 would struggle to have adequate ground clearance without redesigning the wing/landing gear or sacrificing the engine's bypass ratio and thus creating a more inefficient engine. I think I'll have to correct myself, if Airbus made a pylon similar to the 787's which mounts the engine very close to the wing, there is a good chance that a A330-500/600 could accommodate a larger engine A330  A330-300 High-Bypass Turbofan by tarmo888, on Flickr 787  Boeing 787 Dreamliner by Neal Caplan, on Flickr |
|
