Airbus to test new engine design for successor to A320 | Hacker News Reader

Airbus to test new engine design for successor to A320

ft.com

19 pointssupermatou13 comments

There's no major announcement here (compared to what Airbus has been saying for the last few years). Airbus continues to believe that propfans/open rotor designs are worth testing for their next generation design.

As noted in the article, such a design would likely require rear-fuselage mounted engines, or high wings (either shoulder mounted or gull shaped)

What seems interesting to me is that Boeing's "next gen" bet seems to revolve around truss braced wings, which seem to also require shoulder mounted wings. I wonder how well these two features would interact with each other.

I seem to recall very thin wings being touted as lower drag, but are unable to store fuel. Are the trusses there to support thinner wings?

Edit: the answer seems to be yes, they are thinner wings, called the Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW). However why is it transonic? higher speed would negate the fuel savings. Also this looks to be experimental and not for the next generation.

https://investors.boeing.com/investors/news/press-release-de...

Standard airplanes used for passenger travel have transonic airflow. Some air is forced to be supersonic as it passes over the wing and around the body of the plane.

The Transonic Truss-Braced Wing is still experimental but prototypes have been built and they are seriously considered for the next generation. If I recall correctly where to store the fuel is a bit concern.

question , have mono in plane body engines ever been tried? i developed a fascination with the idea (which is obviously tertible for safety and maintenance reasons) but beyond some exotic early critters google gave me nothing .

Perhaps the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Vision_SF50 is along the lines of what you had in mind?

This "new tech" is at LEAST 45 years old. I worked on the 7J7 technology. Called the UDF - Un-Ducted Fan concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_7J7

It also doesn't seem to be too different from a turboprop (which is also just a turbine with a prop stuck on of course). What are the technical differences between those?

As a passenger the A320 and its variations are the worst plane to be on, and I’ve been all over the world.

They’re always a low cost airline favorite and you feel like a sardine in it; the boarding takes forever since they can hold up to 230(!!!) people in the newer variations. The bathrooms suck.

I had a Qatar Airways business flight and its the only time the plane was bearable, but having 100+ people board through the business class area still sucked.

I wish more airports supported wide bodies or stuck to smaller airplanes like the Embraer e190.

I'm sorry for your plight about the proles passing by you in first class there. Perhaps try flying private next time. It's really nice.

But really, this is an airline-specific problem. They decide the seating layout, the boarding procedure and all that. The manufacturer really has nothing to do with it, be it Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier, or any others.

If we're trading gripes, I'll throw my hat in for the opposite side, I'd much rather fly on a 320 family. The fly-by-wire makes the trip most often, by the feeling in my butt, more smooth than a cable-flown 737. Climbs and turns feel less rough around the edges, I'll take an Airbus of any model over a Boeing any flight, regardless of how many people have to pass me in first class.

I don't find it worse than a 737. But an Embraer E195 E2, while a much smaller plane, is surprisingly much more comfortable. I wish they were used a lot more.

They did some smart stuff like a "squircle" shaped cross-section that really helps. The 320 and the 737 even more so can't have those things because they are based on old designs to make training easier.

A320 is wider than 737, you really see the difference inside. I always was better seated on low cost a320 than a low cost 737

Hmm? Generally, I've found them to be more pleasant than 737s, which is what they're competing with; they're a little less claustrophobic, and generally not as noisy. Also the doors rarely escape, so there's that.

> I wish more airports supported wide bodies

The vast majority of A320s aren't used in cases where wide bodies aren't supported; they're used for routes for which wide bodies aren't _suitable_.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com