New Aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: York
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Aircraft
Is there any models being designed apart from the A380 or 7E7.
I always wondered why Airbus dont make an A322 a stretched A321 to compete with the 757-300.
Also why dont Boeing make a 787 to compete with the A340-600.
Over the years Boeing are gradually losing their spot as number 1 airline manufactuar, the reason being that there has been no new plane since the 777, 737-800 was just a stretch and so was the 757-300, i hope Boeing make this 7E7 as it looks brilliant and will dominate the skies for many new years to come.
I always wondered why Airbus dont make an A322 a stretched A321 to compete with the 757-300.
Also why dont Boeing make a 787 to compete with the A340-600.
Over the years Boeing are gradually losing their spot as number 1 airline manufactuar, the reason being that there has been no new plane since the 777, 737-800 was just a stretch and so was the 757-300, i hope Boeing make this 7E7 as it looks brilliant and will dominate the skies for many new years to come.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm, wrong forum I reckon. An airliner made entirely of plastic??? Crivens, they probably don't have decent, god-fearing horse-hair in the seats or a smell of fear in the cockpit
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To attempt a response to Tommyinwork: Airbus's equivalent to the B757-300 in terms of capacity is the A310 which is still, nominally, in production but is non fly-by-wire and CCQ. They have talked for years about "shrinking" the A330 to fill this gap but it would be quite a heavy, uneconomic aircraft. I don't know if the A321 has any further stretch left in it - others may know. Boeing's equivalent to the A340-600 is the B777-300ER which has about 30 less pax but flies about 300nm - further burning a lot less fuel in the process.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A slightly tenuous grasp of airliner economics here.
The 757-300 has sold a scant 55 so far, with none on order (according to ATI), which seems to reflect the small size of the niche for "250+ seats, medium range, and no belly hold cargo capacity". Why in God's name would Airbus want to chase that market?
And why likewise would Boeing want to produce a trijet? Brand new design, all to cannibalise 777 sales, invalidate their key argument about twins being able to do everything...and to keep some anoraks happy?
(uy707 - isn't "807" a Peugeot registered trademark?
)
The 757-300 has sold a scant 55 so far, with none on order (according to ATI), which seems to reflect the small size of the niche for "250+ seats, medium range, and no belly hold cargo capacity". Why in God's name would Airbus want to chase that market?
And why likewise would Boeing want to produce a trijet? Brand new design, all to cannibalise 777 sales, invalidate their key argument about twins being able to do everything...and to keep some anoraks happy?
(uy707 - isn't "807" a Peugeot registered trademark?
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: York
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 737-600 is another big loses from Boeing, any one also remember the 747-sp, what happened to that.
Isnt the A321 smaller than the 757-200, im sure its about 20 seats less.
And why wouldnt Boeing make a trijet, look at Airbus making A340s people say trijets are thirsty planes what about them they have four engines.
Isnt the A321 smaller than the 757-200, im sure its about 20 seats less.
And why wouldnt Boeing make a trijet, look at Airbus making A340s people say trijets are thirsty planes what about them they have four engines.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 757 programme has now been officially ended - hence no orders listed for the -300. As far as recent Boeing turkeys go it must be a toss up between the 757-300 and the 767-400 of which just 37 have been ordered/delivered. Unless, I suppose, they get the tanker order which would be for a 767-200 with a -400 cockpit. 
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A321 is about as stretched as it can be, methinks, unless you want to change the wing and then there's no point.
An A310 replacement is urgently needed to take on the 7E7 and to chase the 753, 762 market.
Trijets are done post MD11 methinks. Otherwise Mr Boeing wouldn't own Mr McDonnell Douglas.
The only thing about the 310 is it is getting a few military/tanker sales these days...
An A310 replacement is urgently needed to take on the 7E7 and to chase the 753, 762 market.
Trijets are done post MD11 methinks. Otherwise Mr Boeing wouldn't own Mr McDonnell Douglas.
The only thing about the 310 is it is getting a few military/tanker sales these days...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always wondered why Airbus dont make an A322 a stretched A321 to compete with the 757-300.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&highlight=321
Paxing All Over The World
Trijets will not reappear, because twins can do all that they could and more. It is not just about fuel flow but maintenance. Do you want to overhaul three engines or two? Also, the access to the third engine is always tricky. Whether it is the S-shape for the 727 or the conventional for MD-10/11, they require extra gantries and lifts and so forth. With wing mounted donkeys, you slide a trailer underneath and catch it as it drops off.
Also, the a/c has to be physically strong enough to take the weight and handle the thrust or rear/tail mounted pods. When design is moving towards (or has, in some cases) composite V stab, then there really is no point in thinking about tri motors.
Most of the rest of the questions asked by TiY are inextricably linked with 100 years technological development, commercial life and national pride. Not to mention some humungous egos.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Also, the a/c has to be physically strong enough to take the weight and handle the thrust or rear/tail mounted pods. When design is moving towards (or has, in some cases) composite V stab, then there really is no point in thinking about tri motors.
Most of the rest of the questions asked by TiY are inextricably linked with 100 years technological development, commercial life and national pride. Not to mention some humungous egos.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
The 321 is a stretch of the 320. Basically a couple of plugs in the fuselage to increase (charter) seating from 180 to 220.
Th MTOW is increased from 77000 to 89000 (I seem to recall). Engines uprated but wing the same as 320. Therein lies the problem. Its crap at climbing and achieving a decent cruise level. On a 4 hour trip from Canaries expect to have a MAX ALT of 31000 for the first hour or so.
Certainly no room left for a further stretch!
Th MTOW is increased from 77000 to 89000 (I seem to recall). Engines uprated but wing the same as 320. Therein lies the problem. Its crap at climbing and achieving a decent cruise level. On a 4 hour trip from Canaries expect to have a MAX ALT of 31000 for the first hour or so.
Certainly no room left for a further stretch!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this weeks 'business world' mag there is an article with regard to the A380 and it coomes as no surprise that Airbus admit it is already 4 tonnes overweight. It adds that galleys, fixtures and fittings are all new for the plane and must be built of composite materials to reduce the weight. There is also concern that the suppliers for this kit are not up to speed and may deliver late which is reputed to be one reason for Virgins delay in taking the aircraft.
