New Airbus trijet
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
From: Estonia
New Airbus trijet
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?
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?

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 782
Likes: 21
From: netherlands
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/showthr...ghlight=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
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?
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/showthr...ghlight=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
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?
Last edited by keesje; 18th April 2008 at 14:20. Reason: spelling
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
From: Estonia
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.
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.
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)?

Joined: Dec 2004
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From: Germany
Looks remarkably similar to the Heinkel He 162 Salamander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162
I'm surprised this merits a patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162
I'm surprised this merits a patent.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 1
From: Florida
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
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
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 10
From: France
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.
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.




