PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   Airbus Alternative To Boeing 787. (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/225306-airbus-alternative-boeing-787-a.html)

planemad2 10th May 2006 02:57

Airbus Alternative To Boeing 787.
 
Airbus are hoping to build a new model, specifically targeted at Airlines like Singapore and Emirates, to hopefully prevent them ordering the 787.

Could also be for Qantas, as the 787s are for Jetstar.

The A370 would come in 2 sizes, approximately the same size as the A350-900 and the A340-600.

It would have an all new Al-Li fuselage, NOT composites, of ~236 inch cross section allowing "true" 9 abreast seating.

All new wing, NOT based on 330/340/350.

Entry into service late 2012.

More details to follow.................

planemad2 10th May 2006 03:30

The smaller A370 (A350-900 size) would require 2 engines of ~85,000 lbs thrust, where the larger A370 would require 2 engines of ~100,000 lbs thrust.

IF no suitable engine is available for the larger model A370, it could become a quadjet.

IF one or more of the engine manufacturers does a suitable 100,000 lb engine, it could also be used on the A380-800R/A380-900.

Chimbu chuckles 10th May 2006 03:34

Too late...Boeing have stolen a march on Airbus.

The next airbus built that actually meets design criteria will be about the first....the baby buses being a possible exception. Boeing do it as a matter of course. I think Airbus, certainly the widebody longhaul part of the company, has had it's 15 minutes of fame.

The company I work for was going to go all Airbus and actually has 320/319 doing regional work but we are now going 777 200ER then 787 before 2010 for longhaul and 737-(900?)NG for regional...ROCK ON:ok:

Going Boeing 10th May 2006 04:38

Planemad2

Is Airbus still sticking with bleed air for the A370 as they did with the A350. The engine manufacturers and Boeing believe that Bleed air is an inefficient way of pressurising and de-icing an aeroplane - Airbus appears to know better.

CC

You'd be aware of the spate of landing incidents involving A340-600s - eg Thai in Melbourne and Cathay in Sydney (new landing gear required) to name a couple. South African Airways made a decision a number of years ago to go all Airbus and have been replacing their B744's with A346's. It appears that they did not think about the problems in landing this beast in JNB. Ground staff in JNB are saying that A346 landing incidents and/or go-arounds (not only SAA aircraft) are almost a daily event and it's putting the wind up even seasoned travellers. Give me a Boeing anyday.

planemad2 10th May 2006 05:01

Going Boeing,

This is a brand new proposal, hot off the press, I doubt if they have planned all that yet.

They probably will though, they seem to favour it even for thrust reversers, where Boeing usually use hydraulics.

Tom Sawyer 10th May 2006 06:27


Originally Posted by planemad2
They probably will though, they seem to favour it even for thrust reversers, where Boeing usually use hydraulics.

A340 / A320 series with CFM & RR Trent all use hyd reversers.
B744 & 742 all use pneumatics.
Manufacturers will use whatever suits that particular model both on a cost and design basis.

planemad2 10th May 2006 06:41

I don't know about those new fangled things. :confused:

I can only compare the same engines in A300/A310s with B767s. ;)

twenty eight 10th May 2006 06:48

Does this mean that the A350 is dead?
I hear Airbus has about 180 orders for the A350. I can't see them making two aircraft about the same size

planemad2 10th May 2006 06:51

The information I have, is Airbus will keep the A350-800.

Taildragger67 10th May 2006 11:19


Originally Posted by Going Boeing
Planemad2

CC
You'd be aware of the spate of landing incidents involving A340-600s - eg Thai in Melbourne and Cathay in Sydney (new landing gear required) to name a couple. South African Airways made a decision a number of years ago to go all Airbus and have been replacing their B744's with A346's. It appears that they did not think about the problems in landing this beast in JNB. Ground staff in JNB are saying that A346 landing incidents and/or go-arounds (not only SAA aircraft) are almost a daily event and it's putting the wind up even seasoned travellers. Give me a Boeing anyday.

GB,

What's been the nature of these incidents eg. too hard an arrival, or bumping the tail due over-flare?

just wondering.

Going Boeing 10th May 2006 13:18

Taillie

I believe that the fuselage (being extremely long) flexes and twists when up elevator is commanded for the flare. This is resulting in unpredicted behaviour during the flare - especially with crosswind. Couple this with the high ground speed incurred because of JNB's elevation and the large amount of thermal activity, then it is causing problems in retaining the aiming point and getting the flare right. There have been many very deep landings at JNB (in both the horizontal and vertical sense) and frequent go-arounds. :ouch:

404 Titan 10th May 2006 14:45

I love all this talk from people about the A340-600. Most of these people have no idea what they are talking about and are blabbing on about complete rubbish. The -600 would have to be one of the easiest of the Airbus wide bodies to fly and is incredibly stable and much more forgiving in the landings than its shorter fuselage cousins. Take-offs and taxiing require a little more attention to detail but once mastered are fairly straight forward. Yes it is long but so is the B777-300. The problem with the A340-600 is it is treated as the same aircraft type as the A340-300 by airlines and the regulators, i.e. common type endorsement. The reality is they are two completely different animals requiring different techniques and more importantly precautions. Coupled to this the added complexity of “Mixed Fleet Flying” (A330/A343/A346) where you may end up flying the -600 only once or twice a year and it is a recipe for disaster. This is where the problem with the aircraft lies and not in some perceived flaw in the aircraft design.

Chimbu chuckles 10th May 2006 15:25

I agree...it's silly to suggest Airbus are flawed designs...clearly they are not....I do tend to think that MCC has more potential problems than the various regulatory agencies at first thought...or the original intent has been pushed too far by the demands of successive designs.

The general opinion of people much more knowledgable than me seems to be along the lines of 'Airbus don't quite do what they are claimed to be able to do but Boeings usually do just a little more than claimed.'

I think we are seeing that with the A380 delays and various issues. We also see evidence of it with the stinging performance penalties attached to airbus fleet purchases by airlines.

I have yet to meet an Engineer who speaks in glowing terms about airbus...they all seem to be of the opinion that they are not built to last....that's not to say they don't exist I just have not met one....ever.:ok:

Personally if the current rumours at work end up being just that and we get airbus I will happily go off for the type rating training and no doubt enjoy the aeroplane once I get my head around its cultural differences...I have flown a LOT of aeroplanes in the last 25 yrs and thus far have never met one I didn't like...with the possible exception of the Citation:hmm: ...I really like Boeings:ok:

I think the thing which....bemuses me...about airbus v boeing is that airbus culture seems to put the pilots that 1/2 step further away interface wise. I recently asked one of our pilots who was Boeing for a long time and now is on the airbus his thoughts...his answer was 'the airbus is really clever-when all is well I like it...when things start going wrong I would rather be in a Boeing'. All my mates who fly them say they are less intuitive..and these are not guys new to type but guys who have been flying them for 6 or 7 years.

With the 787 and the 747-8 I think Boeing have really given airbus a bloody nose...I have not seen anything which has convinced me Airbus have a hands down winner in the A380...it could still kick Airbus in the nuts...there are just too many demands on infrastructure and route planning with the A380...none with the 787 or 747-8.

Personally I lean towards the Boeing feeling that people want to travel direct somewhere in a smaller plane rather than hub and spoke in behemoths. Look at the grid lock that security etc has wrought on the hub and spoke system in the states and look at the massive profits South West make going direct in small aeroplanes...imagine two A380s arriving at 0600 at YSSY...that is one terminal that WILL NOT cope with A380...in fact Sydney is a joke at the best of times...I would go to quite large efforts to not travel as a pax on A380 if travelling for personal reasons and it was my choice.

planemad2 11th May 2006 03:21


Originally Posted by twenty eight
Does this mean that the A350 is dead?
I hear Airbus has about 180 orders for the A350. I can't see them making two aircraft about the same size

Just to get back to the subject :rolleyes: I have been advised that the A350 will eventually replace the A330 and the A370 will eventually replace the (not very popular) A340. :ok:

LookinDown 11th May 2006 04:07

380
 
What is the latest on 380 delivery dates and how realistic are they?

Taildragger67 11th May 2006 09:27

So where does 'A360' fit in?

New single-aisle?

Led Zep 11th May 2006 18:18


Originally Posted by Taildragger67
So where does 'A360' fit in?

New single-aisle?

No, A360 is a research committee looking back at the A300 and working out why it was so popular, with the aim to have a similar effect on the sales of the current range of Airbus products. :}

planemad2 16th May 2006 03:54

So, it looks like Emirates have managed to get out of their A340-600 order, IF these are the ones Virgin Pacific are taking. ;)

Leaving Emirates free to take the much improved A370s. :ok:


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:07.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.