Jump to content

Photo

Aircraft Revival

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21
berubium

berubium

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 329 posts

User's Awards

        

Bland answer, but I'd like to see the CRJ-200 come back (hopefully with improvements in efficiency) for the sake of having a small jet in the 50 seat capacity range.  We could call it the CRJ-200 NextGen to go along with Bombardier's plans for the CRJ-700, 900, & 1000.  Add to that a Q200 NextGen & Q300 NextGen.  I believe there could still be markets for those aircraft, especially if airlines have existing Q400 NextGen planes for fleet commonality.


Berubium.png


#22
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

I would say A340-600 with twin engines to compete with B777-200ER. Why? It have cargo capacity closed to B777-300ER. It's a massive wins.



#23
TheAceOffRoad

TheAceOffRoad

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 34 posts
BAE Avro RJ-Series
Boeing 717
Bombardier CRJ-200
Fairchild Dornier 328JET

#24
Trolley_Trev

Trolley_Trev

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 12 posts

+1



#25
Max Devo

Max Devo

    Extra spicy memes

  • Member
  • 363 posts

Updated answer: Tu-154M


tumblr_nfjii5i0Ky1sorz3uo1_250.jpg


#26
dazwalsh

dazwalsh

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 438 posts
757-200, awesome aircraft that will sadly fade from our skies over the next decade or so, would have been nice to give her new wings and engines.

#27
hedgeaf

hedgeaf

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 41 posts

BAe New Regional Aircraft (NRA) - the twin engine version of the 146 instead of the rather boring RJ upgrade. Could have been a contender... I'd call it the 246. I'm original like that.

 

Alternative would be the Vickers VC.7 another "what if" of aviation.



#28
ItsNoz

ItsNoz

    King of Tripoli, in a bright pink shirt

  • Member
  • 12 posts

I would like a more fuel efficient and updated Dassult Mercure, I think with better engines and technology it could be useful for airlines short haul destinations.


74,999mi


#29
keanseeley

keanseeley

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 58 posts

I would like a more fuel efficient and updated Dassault Mercure, I think with better engines and technology it could be useful for airlines short haul destinations.

There was a cooperation between Dassault and several US manufactures which tried to develop an updated Mercure with CFM56s and more range to market, but nothing ever came of it. Later on in the 80s, some French, German, and English businessmen tried to develop a pan-European narrowbody using the same engines. Last I checked, nothing ever became of it  ;)



#30
tom.

tom.

    something soon.

  • Member
  • 765 posts
I would re vive the 747-400 they're shutting down their production and airlines are ditching them for the a380 :(

 

SKYWORLD ALLIANCE™ | Founder & Former CEO

UW | Former Member

 

 

b0UuKp1.png

 


#31
WAZZ

WAZZ

    Fan of being inactive

  • Member
  • 298 posts
  • Skype Name:wazzupyoshi

User's Awards

2   

I would re vive the 747-400 they're shutting down their production and airlines are ditching them for the a380 :(

[citation needed]

 

Bringing back the god of the sky, the 757.


Discord: Farko#3900 lolbanned

 


#32
zortan

zortan

    AE Winner

  • Member
  • 2,515 posts
  • Website:http://aeronauticsonline.com

747SP



#33
Duncan Duncan Duncan

Duncan Duncan Duncan

    If my content suffer from experimenting, so be it.

  • Member
  • 333 posts

2707, MD-12, Sonic Cruiser

 

Any one of these could make America great again.


hGHxJjo.png


#34
Avelo

Avelo

    ae4ever

  • Member
  • 1,328 posts

User's Awards

5    2   

[citation needed]

Bringing back the god of the sky, the 757.

Facts, not even the A321, its closest competitor, can match the versatility and range of the 757.

#35
Avelo

Avelo

    ae4ever

  • Member
  • 1,328 posts

User's Awards

5    2   

I would re vive the 747-400 they're shutting down their production and airlines are ditching them for the a380 :(

Not necessarily, since the A380 has also been a slow seller.

#36
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Now to think about it. Boeing is working on new MOM aircrafts similar to B767-200ER and B767-300ER. We need to revive A300-600 with a range of 6500nm or 7000nm. US3 and LCC would definitely buy tons of it. There are currently 0 plane that have that capacity and range. This would definitely open up tons of new routes.



#37
Stevphfeniey

Stevphfeniey

    Bad m*****f*****

  • Member
  • 4,249 posts
  • Website:http://stevphfeniey.tumblr.com/

Now to think about it. Boeing is working on new MOM aircrafts similar to B767-200ER and B767-300ER. We need to revive A300-600 with a range of 6500nm or 7000nm. US3 and LCC would definitely buy tons of it. There are currently 0 plane that have that capacity and range. This would definitely open up tons of new routes.


That's called an A330, son

please don't kill us we're just the aquabats

 

The Best Discord Server


#38
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

That's called an A330, son

 
A330-200/-300 have bigger capacities comparable to B787-8/-9. B767-200ER and B767-300ER have smaller capacities than that.
It's time for you to learn the basic of the aviation industry. It doesn't seem like you know much about aircraft in general.


#39
Stevphfeniey

Stevphfeniey

    Bad m*****f*****

  • Member
  • 4,249 posts
  • Website:http://stevphfeniey.tumblr.com/



A330-200/-300 have bigger capacities comparable to B787-8/-9. B767-200ER and B767-300ER have smaller capacities than that.
It's time for you to learn the basic of the aviation industry. It doesn't seem like you know much about aircraft in general.


I know that an A330/340 uses the same fuselage structure as the A300 (iirc they added in like 3-4 frames to extend the fuselage to give us the A330/340-300), albeit with different aluminum alloys resulting in a lighter airframe. The joins between the wings and the fuselage are different too, but that's due to the new wings Airbus developed.

In terms of engines the A300 and A330 both use CF6s, while the A330 introduced PW4000s and Rollers.

All of which resulting in a range somewhere in the ballpark of about 9000 kilometers on the A330 with an increased capacity over the A300.

So you're right, you presumptuous philistine, the A330 isn't technically in the same "class" as say an A300 or a 762. But airlines literally everywhere seem more than happy to be replacing their 767 fleets with A330s.

please don't kill us we're just the aquabats

 

The Best Discord Server


#40
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

I know that an A330/340 uses the same fuselage structure as the A300 (iirc they added in like 3-4 frames to extend the fuselage to give us the A330/340-300), albeit with different aluminum alloys resulting in a lighter airframe. The joins between the wings and the fuselage are different too, but that's due to the new wings Airbus developed.

In terms of engines the A300 and A330 both use CF6s, while the A330 introduced PW4000s and Rollers.

All of which resulting in a range somewhere in the ballpark of about 9000 kilometers on the A330 with an increased capacity over the A300.

So you're right, you presumptuous philistine, the A330 isn't technically in the same "class" as say an A300 or a 762. But airlines literally everywhere seem more than happy to be replacing their 767 fleets with A330s.

Yes, Thank You wikipedia.

 

Now, you seem to miss the point that I'm talking specifically about A300 capacity. Which is smaller than A330-200 and way smaller than A330-300. Until now, The US3 and many airlines around the world like JAL, ANA, Rogue, LATAM, Condor, Air Canada, BA still use dozens of B767-300ER. Delta have 58 B767-300ER, AA have 40, UA have 35, JAL have 32, ANA have 25 and many airlines still operating dozens of them.

 

To say that "Airlines literally everywhere seem more than happy to be replacing their 767 fleets with A330s." is technically wrong. Many airlines use B767-300ER because of its small capacity and range for medium-haul range. A330-200 and B787-8 is still too big to fill for the market that currently suited better for B767-300ER. The small size also allowed many airlines to add more frequency to many of their routes. JFK-PRG perhaps?

The main reason why you don't see many airlines around the world replacing their B767-300ER with A330-200/-300 is because it's too big for the routes they operate. Sure some routes are getting bigger planes, but it doesn't look like all of the routes require the plane with B787-8 and A330-200 capacity.

You also discounted the fact that a smaller aircrafts with the capacity of B767-300ER and A300 would open up new long-haul routes.

 

Also, A330-200 and B787-8 have too much range and thrust for medium-haul/regional flights that A300 and B767-300ER dominated.

Currently Boeing is talking about the MOM. Some said that Boeing are working on MOM aircraft that would fit into the market that long have been abandoned.

If you look at it, there is currently 0 next generations small Wide-body aircrafts that have similar capacity to B767-200ER, B767-300ER, A310 and A300-600. This particular market is important for many airlines like US3 or airlines from smaller countries with long-thin routes.

 

P.S. THis is a Topic about Aircraft Revival. Not sure why you have to listed the engines type of A330. Also, I don't know where you get the 9000km range from. Since A330-200 and A330-300 doesn't seem to have that particular range. Nor does A300.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users