Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

New Airbus trijet

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

New Airbus trijet

Old 18th Apr 2008, 12:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
chornedsnorkack is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2008, 13:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do the Airbus engineers get paid more if the plane is uglier? First the A380, now this

Last edited by Check Airman; 18th Apr 2008 at 20:47.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2008, 14:17
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?

Last edited by keesje; 18th Apr 2008 at 14:20. Reason: spelling
keesje is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2008, 14:27
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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)?
chornedsnorkack is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2008, 15:34
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The patent is for a methoid of removing and installing the engine, nothing else!
glhcarl is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2008, 15:38
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 58
Posts: 179
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks remarkably similar to the Heinkel He 162 Salamander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162

I'm surprised this merits a patent.
flugholm is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2008, 16:00
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2008, 22:52
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

ChristiaanJ is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.