Airbus to test new engine design for successor to A320 (opens in new tab)

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...

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 .

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?

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_.