Airbus files patent for new trijet design

Flightglobal.com ^ | 18/04/2008 | Stephen Trimble

[Vroomfondel]

Even earlier:

[Tommyjo]

Even earlier than that on a jet was the Heinkel 280.

[ccmay]

Prior art: Heinkel He-162 Salamander

-ccm

[Paleo Conservative]

Prior art: Heinkel He-162 Salamander

Boy that really makes the Airbus patent look like its 65 years too late.

[UNGN]

What a lousy place to put an engie. Lets say it needs four quarts of oil between long flights, Can’t reach it with a ladder, how do you get up there? What about an engine change? Can’t lower it, got to raise it somehow. Try doing that in the field somewhere after an inflight shutdown and offlanding at an alternate airport. Ask any line mechanic about servicing the number two engine on a DC-10/Md-11. Engines belong on the wings close to the ground.

A few months ago I heard that an overhaul shop in Singapore dropped the #2 engine on the Horizontal stab when the sling broke.

The report said the nosewheel of the plane came off the ground from the impact. Good thing they only use them for cargo, now.

[ccmay]

They would open the door to the flight deck if you could show a pilot’s license. They would do it about dawn on the eastbound TA flights. Wonderful.

Once on a BA flight from Phoenix to Heathrow, my dad sent his business card forward with his RAF squadron (19) and aircraft types (Spitfire IX, Mustang D). The PIC turned out to be another 19 Sqdn man who had flown BAC Lightnings in the Vietnam era. Dad and I were invited into the cockpit, and rode in the jump seats from Colorado to Greenland while chewing the fat about airplanes and war.

-ccm

[MindBender26]

Outstanding!

[MHalblaub]

“Boy that really makes the Airbus patent look like its 65 years too late.”

Don’t blame Airbus for US patent law.

[MHalblaub]

This Honda design is not so new:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFW-614
Maybe quieter on ground but how is it for passengers?

[raygun]

The first thing I thought of of after seing the ping was:

“why didn’t they put winglets on the stinkin’ thing?”

They’ve put winglets on cars even.

I’m not an aeronautical engineer, but the A-10 doesn’t have winglets, so WHY should the Airbus tri-jet have winglets?

IF I was an aeronautical engineer, I’d build a plane like that if it had a single massive beam of titanium. Then I’d make everything else out of paper machiea (except for the windows of course),

Since I’m NOT an aeronautical engineer, don’t tell me that I know roll, pitch or yaw moments of inertia; i know nothing ‘bout those things except as it pertains to 2.0 normally aspirated internal compustion engines spooling up to 18k RPM, i.e., from 0 to 19k RPM discretely in 500 RPM increments.

I guess it boils down to if there’s a difference in spooling up a rotating mass from 500 RPM to 1000 RPM as opposed to 17.5k to 18K. SO the torque at any rated RPM is what ultimately matter the, eh?

I don’t think that sufficient torque could be imparted to break the wings off, but what about longitudinal torsion? I believe it would have similar characteristics to the F-14.

That being said, its very design would lack the fundamental properties of the F-14 & F-16 with respect to that the tail contributes to aerodynamic stability; the F-14, F-16 tail control surface can NOT be implemented in the Airbus tri-motor design.

The last question would be what about a Twins Falls, ID scenario?