Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
On 16 Jun 97 21:35:37 , "jla" <email@example.com> caused to appear as if it was written: >The advantages of the 777 vs A340/330 are glaring. Airbus cannot just add >centerline gear. This has already been stated and acknowledged. The 777 >was designed with the larger, heavier gear, even at the cost of the add'l >weight and price, to allow for larger and heavier versions of the craft. >The Airbus products, however, will need to redesign the gear to support the >additional weight...a great and expensive $$$ undertaking. Hang on! The the A330-200 has a reinforced gear compared to the A330-300, and the A340 has a different twin-wheel center main gear. I don't see what this poster is trying to say... A lot of people seem to be running around saying Airbus needs to redesign this or that part of the A330/A340 family in order to achieve specific goals. But so what? Boeing redesigned the 747's wing for the -400, and modified the fuse for the -300, and it looks like they're adding 3.96m to the wings of the 777-200 for the -200X and increasing its MTOW to 333Tonnes. But the 777-200X seems to have hit a bit of a brick wall in that the engine manufacturers apparently aren't willing to commit to the effort to deliver power plants in excess of 454kN (102,000lb). Every product has growth "jumps", and the 777 is not immume, anymore than the A330 is. The latter was in service first, and perhaps Airbus considered the time-to-service-introduction more important than building growth into various parts of the initial design. As Boeing, Douglas and Airbus have all shown, growth CAN be built into a design AFTER it enters service... Malc.