PDA

View Full Version : New Airbus trijet


chornedsnorkack
18th Apr 2008, 13:42
See the following:

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7240877

So... does anyone have any clues as to engine bypass ratio, fan size, aircraft MTOW, fuselage diametre and EIS date?

Check Airman
18th Apr 2008, 14:09
Do the Airbus engineers get paid more if the plane is uglier? First the A380, now this:confused:

keesje
18th Apr 2008, 15:17
For me it is not enterily clear what the patent is about.

Having engines in this configuration is not new, the A10 has something similiar and I did a post on it some time ago. It is being studied by both Boeing and Airbus for some time. http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=294624&highlight=keesje

Also the fact that a third engine might be handy for e.g. the 370-500 seat segment is clear IMO. Housing that third engine in a smart way gives various design options as we discussed some time before.

120 klbs seems a kind of practical limit for big turbofans. A bigger engine would be hard to break even for RR or GE, they already have an issue on the GE90. Apart from that it seems I've heard of a bit more then statiscally comfortable big twin incidents lately. Maybe it's not the final solution for all requirements.. http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=296974&highlight=keesje (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=296974&highlight=keesje)



Maybe Airbus is picking up some defensive patents for the A350-1000 - A380-800 gab?

The 747-8i doesn't seem a runaway success from where I am sitting and the 777-300ER is doing fine, but has little competition in a booming market..

GE is keeping Airbus away from their 80+ klbs engines. A350-1100 & -1200 XWB three holers? Who makes a sketch?

chornedsnorkack
18th Apr 2008, 15:27
Also the fact that a third engine might be handy for e.g. the 370-500 seat segment is clear IMO. Housing that third engine in a smart way gives various design options as we discussed some time before.

120 klbs seems a kind of practical limit for big turbofans. A bigger engine would be hard to break even for RR or GE, they already have an issue on the GE90. Apart from that it seems I've heard of a bit more then statiscally comfortable big twin incidents lately.

It is the limit for engines with bypass ratio of GE90-115, perhaps.

If you want to increase bypass ratio further, but cannot increase engine diametre, you would lose thrust.

So, an Airbus 360 replacement for A340-500/600? With 3 engines and XWB cross-section?

Or something else? Can A318 compete with the fuel burn of Bombardier C110 geared turbofans? If they cannot, and A320-sized geared turbofans are too big to be accommodated under A320 wing, what about a narrowbody trijet, with A321+ sized fuselage (like 757)?

glhcarl
18th Apr 2008, 16:34
The patent is for a methoid of removing and installing the engine, nothing else!

flugholm
18th Apr 2008, 16:38
Looks remarkably similar to the Heinkel He 162 Salamander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162

I'm surprised this merits a patent.

lomapaseo
18th Apr 2008, 17:00
Looking at patents, there is just as much strategy to protecting your own interests should you have a design need, as to preventing another guy from quickly entering a market that you want to protect.


I was turned down on several patent applications though a corporate patent office simply because my novel ideas did not meet either of the strategies above.

I guess that's why you still can't take highspeed rail to the moon :hmm:

ChristiaanJ
18th Apr 2008, 23:52
On the Trident Three-and-a-half they just solved it by adding the RB162 booster engine.
None of this nonsense of actually retracting or extending an engine.

Oh, and I've already got the original patent.
I'm seeing my lawyer in the morning.
Shared it with the A-10 guys, though.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/ChristiaanJ/12060002w.jpg