Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
Also single bogey (which the 75 did not have) becomes an issue for pavement loading and contaminated runways in the weight range suggested by the article. This limits the city pair point-to-point options, at least for the north EU bucket&spade market.
Dual bogey adds weight and complexity which is left unused unless it's twin-aisle.
What the airlines will get by 2030 at best is most likely A330-400.
Based on A330-800 NEO
- minus the trim and centre tank
- severely reduced MTOM for route charges
- heavily derated engines for noise
- smaller fin for weight reduction
- A380 style hydraulics
- superlightweight interior based on biomimic 3D ALM
- redesigned flap allowing for smaller tailplane
- possibly aileron-less
- increased cycle count for overhauls of the LDG gear and lifespan of the load bearing structure
- redesigned outer wing with blended winglets but shorter wingspan
The benefits of proven FBW and established crew training programmes, fleet commonality et al will become priceless in the face of risk from a newly developed solution from an OEM who lost the mojo to meet their own targets.
Airbus always has the option to sell at loss just to keep the niche above 321 bridged, albeit with an oversize piece.
Still sounds like 76X, doesn't it? What the airlines are missing is an agile freight sales model + solution to take advantage of the decentralised e-commerce delivery demand to fill the surplus cargo space.
An interesting list of changes there.
The no-aileron change I can see, so long as we're all happy for spoilers.
I see wings having higher aspect ratios with folding tips and mighty heavy joints/actuation systems that are justified purely on aerodynamic gains.
Vertical tail is sized for offset and engine out condition combined with some other stuff, so not sure how you get around that with a smaller vstab, unless further away. Also not so sure that horizontal stabiliser is sized around flaps, although whatever you can do to reduce flap moment about CofG is useful. Besides that, there are other manufacturing costs to consider as to whether a whole new tailplane makes sense.
I see systems being as electric as possible.
I would hope to see that, from the Airbus perspective, something useful came from WoT/WoTF and Blade (and its successor) that can be combined with the wing manufacturing tech bought in from C-series (the real reason it was bought to my understanding). Airbus must move away from black metal carbon composites design to really realise the benefits of CFRP in major wing structures.