Capable of accommodating nsr friendship dating indian
I therefore speculate that the NSR and B737RS will have ovoid cross sections about 150 inches wide and about 160 inches high.
Like the B787, they will be roughly egg-shaped, with the pointy end down.
With fuel prices soaring, I think that the launch of the 737RS is within 2 years. They are probably not interested in LD3 compatibility as they do not interline.
However, a 66" cargo hold ceiling height would not slow down their turns. Quoting Sangas (Reply 4): Are you proposing a design where the entire contents of the hold would be containerized in LD3s, or a hold high enough to be capable of accommodating a few single-file LD3s if necessary?
Each latter family will eventually include a freighter variant.
Fan diameters would be larger for the higher MTOW families than for the lighter MTOW families. The lower MTOW family might or might not include a fuselage without the LD3 capability, but with the same wing (probably different wingtip extensions) and systems.
3) There is pressure to carry LD3s single-file in the NSR and B737RS.
4) In order to reduce turn-around times, there is pressure to make the aisle wider, thus requiring a fuselage wider than that of the A320.
Agreed, but that's a problem that's solved once, on the drawing board.), and reduced CASM; There seem to be a number of "regional" jets with this sort of capability. That suggests a lot of competition from them for the low MTOW market.My guess is if Boeing/Airbus wanted to go into this market, they would be wiser to design an airplane for it from the ground up, one that uses the least amount of fuel for the largest single expenses for such short hops (Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter): Each latter family will eventually include a freighter variant.The 150" approximate fuselage width I suggested is 6" wider than that of the A320.Another 4" or so would be available from the switch to a CFRP fuselage.
What are the aerodynamic efficiency losses with a constant diameter fuselage?