Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Airbus Can't Offer The Same Range On A321?  
User currently offlineAirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 18313 times:

Hello all


I like to know whats the difference between the A321 characteristic to B757s? Both about the same size however B757 have longer range if offering ER, why can't Airbus do the same with A321 offer ER so their range can be competitive to B757-200ERs.. I really love the airbus fleets including the 321s.
It would be nice to see the A321s doing overseas too. I know there will have to be some modifications on the A321s and offer new engines more powerful.

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTom_eddf From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 451 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 18262 times:

The A321 is built upon the A320 platform and shares most components with its smaller siblings, most importantly apart from having double slotted flaps, it shares the same wing and landing gear assembly, limiting MTOW and therefore range.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 18135 times:

Its basically the same reason Boeing can't make the 737-900ER match the 757-200 - both planes are built on a lighter weight platform.

To make them match up with the 752 would kill their family relationship with their other siblings.

N


User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 17970 times:

The A321 cannot offer more range than the A320 because it has the same wing. The two airplanes carry the same amount of fuel also. If you add larger fuel tanks for more fuel, you kill the payload, because the wing can only support a certain weight during cruise. Plus B757 = medium haul/low density (SAN-JFK) route. A321 = short haul/medium (CVG-JFK) density route. The two airplanes are not designed to do the same things. As someone pointed out in another thread, too many operators were using the B757 for missions it was not intended for. They were using the airplane for what the A321 does. Which is why the A321 effectively killed off the B757 when it came along.

User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24938 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 17931 times:

FWIW, there is no such thing as a 757-200ER anyway  Wink There is, however, a 757-200ET (Extra Tanks or something).
A basic 757 still has more range than any of the A320 family.



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25323 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 17799 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 2):
To make them match up with the 752 would kill their family relationship with their other siblings.

I am totally non-technical - as you know. I am challenged by on-off switches.

So is there no way that Airbus could get the range of the A321 up a bit, say to the range of the A319LR, without too many restrictions?

cheers

mariner

[Edited 2006-08-30 10:26:32]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 17685 times:

Quoting Mariner
So is there no way that Airbus could get the range of the A321 up a bit, say to the range of the A319LR, without too many restrictions?

The short answer is no. The only way this would be possible is if Airbus fitted the A321 with a larger wing. Without the larger wing, you would give up most your payload to get the same range of the A319LR. The A319LR gets its increased range by giving up payload for extra fuel. Many extended range airplanes have to do this.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17425 times:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 3):
Which is why the A321 effectively killed off the B757 when it came along.

Tell why you think the A321 killed the 757. The two exisited side-by-side for over 15 years and sales figures for that time period were nearly identical.

I agree that the A321 is still in production while the 757 is not, but the situation is a bit different.

The 757 was a virtual standalone production line with some 767 commonality while the A321 is built as part of the basic A320 line. It costs very little to keep the A321 offerable. The same situation exists for the 737 and its versions.

I think you'd be on better ground by saying that the A320/737 families have replaced the 757 in part of its market area.

So far as performance is concerned, I think you'll find several threads on this forum that discuss the unique niche the 757 fills. No version of the A320 or 737 will completely replace the 757.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17392 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 4):
FWIW, there is no such thing as a 757-200ER anyway

There is, though it is called the VC-25  Wink .


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 17170 times:

I wouldn't be surprized if Airbus at some point announces 2 bigger A320 series aircraft with slightly bigger wings, engines etc.

A stretched A320 (41m) and a stretched A321 (47m) seating up to 240 passengers.

Retaining commonality where praticle, strenghtening / improving where possible/ neccesary.

I made a topic on it, Henry Lam made an artist impression. Not very much later Leahy started communication about an enhanced A320 series. GE is also thinking about a bigger carbon fan CFM56.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00007055.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2724857

Airbus to launch A320E in 2009
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...dy+plans+with+upgraded+'A320.html

GE (Donnely) testing the water for new a CFM56 variant
http://www.awstonline.com/avnow/news...ily_story.jsp?id=news/GEA06226.xml


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 17129 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
I wouldn't be surprized if Airbus at some point announces 2 bigger A320 series aircraft with slightly bigger wings, engines etc.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Airbus to launch A320E in 2009
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles....html

I don't see anything in these articles that would put an A321E on the same range footing as the 752. Larger winglets don't equate to the wing area increase that would be required to match the 752 Payload-Range.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
A stretched A320 (41m) and a stretched A321 (47m) seating up to 240 passengers.

The stretched A321E range with 240 pax would have less range than the current A321.

I think you're describing A320 derivatives that aren't in the Airbus playbook.

[Edited 2006-08-30 18:23:31]


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 17084 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
I wouldn't be surprized if Airbus at some point announces 2 bigger A320 series aircraft with slightly bigger wings, engines etc.

A stretched A320 (41m) and a stretched A321 (47m) seating up to 240 passengers.

Just to put them into the family concept so everybody can understand what you are suggesting, the 41m variant would be an A320.5 and the 47m variant the A322.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 10):
I think you're describing A320 derivatives that aren't the Airbus playbook.

As to the A322, you are right, range would be limited and it would require serious changes to the wing, gear and additional fuel tanks to take this bigger version to the skies so changes of it ever happening are remote, but the 41m variant has been looked at seriously by Airbus (on demand of some customers), because the capacity difference between the A320 and A321 is a big step to take and it would be relatively simple to achieve. So far it has remained only a technical study, but who knows what airbus decides if a launch customer shows up and orders let's say 40 of them?


User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16652 times:

The A321-200 which is the longer range varient has a MTOW of 93 tonnes and can fly roughly 2600nm, this requires engines rated at 32000lb thrust.

The 757-200 in it increased gross weight form can do nearly 4000nm at a MTOW of 155 tonnes requiring 43000lb thrust to do so.

The 757 is a much heavier aircraft, it has a larger gear, much larger wings and was designed as a medium haul airliner to start with, unlike the A321 which was a strectch of an aircraft that already couldn't match the range of the 757.

However the A321 can be operated on some pretty long sectors as demonstrated by Bmed.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16365 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 4):
A basic 757 still has more range than any of the A320 family.

I belive the baseline 757 has a 2569nm and 2728nm range with RR and PW respectively. The 75t MTOW A319 has a 3700nm range.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31056 posts, RR: 87
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16311 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
So is there no way that Airbus could get the range of the A321 up a bit, say to the range of the A319LR, without too many restrictions?

Airbus would have to trade fuel payload weight for non-fuel payload (pax and cargo) weight since, as noted, the wings and engines can only support so much weight, period. At that point, you're probably better off with an A320.  Smile

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 7):
Tell why you think the A321 killed the 757. The two exisited side-by-side for over 15 years and sales figures for that time period were nearly identical.

I plotted it out once to reply to an older thread, and I found that the 752s sales started to fall as the A321s sales started to rise, so I do believe the A321 did affect 757-200 sales directly.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16219 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I plotted it out once to reply to an older thread, and I found that the 752s sales started to fall as the A321s sales started to rise, so I do believe the A321 did affect 757-200 sales directly.

Can you provide the plot or a tabular version of it year by year?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31056 posts, RR: 87
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16181 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
Can you provide the plot or a tabular version of it year by year?

Not without rebuilding it all (did it on a scratchpad as a rough plot since I was looking for trends, not hard X-Y datapoints). I might do that down the road, but you can do it yourself if you'd like it sooner (or more detailed) using Boeing's and Airbus' sales charts (though Boeing makes it much, much easier then Airbus does).


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16107 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
you'd like it sooner (or more detailed) using Boeing's and Airbus' sales charts (though Boeing makes it much, much easier then Airbus does).

Yes, I was trying to avoid doing it if you had the data. The Airbus data is a pain to extract while the Boeing website makes it a snap.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently onlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3362 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15952 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 4):
FWIW, there is no such thing as a 757-200ER anyway Wink There is, however, a 757-200ET (Extra Tanks or something).

I remember reading somewhere that "ET" was a designation some spotters added on for ETOPS-rated aircraft, although officially there is no such thing as a "757-200ET".

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 13):
I belive the baseline 757 has a 2569nm and 2728nm range with RR and PW respectively.

Are you sure you have that right, with a PW-powered 757 having a range of 200nm more than an RR-powered model?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31056 posts, RR: 87
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15789 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 18):
Are you sure you have that right, with a PW-powered 757 having a range of 200nm more than an RR-powered model?

Well the P&W powerplant is less powerful, so perhaps with the same tankage the P&W gets better mileage?


User currently offlineMpdpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 993 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15666 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 13):
I belive the baseline 757 has a 2569nm and 2728nm range with RR and PW respectively. The 75t MTOW A319 has a 3700nm range.

Where are you getting this information? Boeing website shows a 3900nm range for the baseline 757; also for CO to cross the atlantic from EWR I think it would need a fair amount more range than 2500nm range. Just curious what the difference is.



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15372 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):

So is there no way that Airbus could get the range of the A321 up a bit, say to the range of the A319LR, without too many restrictions?

The trouble is that, at least as certified, the max takeoff weight hasn't changed much (if at all) from the 320.

There are two things that "get" you.

First is the wing and main gear -- essentially, how much lift they can produce, and the weight they can handle.

Second (and probably more important) are the engines. The A319/320/321 are designed around the CFM56 and IAE V2500 engines. The maximum thrust either of those deliver, I believe, is 34,000 pounds as used on the A343-300E. Quite remarkable when you think those engines were introduced at about 22,000 pounds of thrust to start.

However, it's a far cry from the 40,000-42,000 pounds you can get from the RB211's fitted to the 757. But those puppies won't fit under an A321's wing. And even if you came up with a mounting that cleared (somewhat like the 737 fan birds), you'd have both increased and shifted the engine weight on the wing -- which would cause wicked bending loads. So you'd have to rework the wing for that, which would cause other changes....and you see the picture. Eventually you would have designed an A757  Smile

Steve


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15181 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 10):
I don't see anything in these articles that would put an A321E on the same range footing as the 752. Larger winglets don't equate to the wing area increase that would be required to match the 752 Payload-Range.

I dont think you would be looking to match the 757 Payload-Range / weight / efficiency. Production wasn´t ended for nothing. Range SEA-MIA, LHR-DBX or SIN-NAR unrestricted is good enough for most network & leisure carriers.

For comparison:
OEW A321-200: 48,139kg (106,130lb)
OEW B757-200: 57,975kg (127,810lb)

Ad a few tons of extra wing, fuselage & structure, 36.000lb new technology engines.

The A300/A310/757/762 replacement market is there. The wider, more comfortable cabin over the 757 and better cargo hold would also be a gain on longer flights.



User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4005 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15097 times:

Isn't there a sort of A321-200"ER" with extra tanks? BMed operates the A321 on LHR-THR, IIRC, which is roughly 2.750.

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14928 times:

Quoting Mpdpilot (Reply 20):
Where are you getting this information? Boeing website shows a 3900nm range for the baseline 757; also for CO to cross the atlantic from EWR I think it would need a fair amount more range than 2500nm range. Just curious what the difference is.

All you need to know is that 60t of aircraft + 18t of pax (Boing assumes 100kg per pax + baggage - conservative estimates perhaps but nethertheless the standard) + 34t of fuel = 112t. So only the top two MTOW options avaliable can utilise the full fuel capacity thus full range. These are sometimes dubbed ERs by the Airlines though not by Boeing. I don't know what version CO have, but they could have been upgraded.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 18):
with a PW-powered 757 having a range of 200nm more than an RR-powered model?

The PW200 is more efficient that the RB211 and it's avaliable at any MTOW the 211 is. The 211 is actually a bit overkill on the 757 in most cases and this reduces it's fuel efficiency. This does however mean it's never too stressed thus has a massive on-wing lifespan and is generally pretty reliable. More than can be said for the PW2000. Certainly makes a much cooler noise too, which is always an important factor for the Airlines Big grin


25 B707Stu : Hardly.
26 FlyABR : and wouldn't that plane be the 783?
27 Stitch : The 783 is quite a bit larger then all but the A300 in terms of passenger capacity (and that is when configured at 8-across).
28 Andaman : Seems like Finnair will use something like that HEL-NRT, starting with B752 in Dec.[Edited 2006-08-30 23:59:41]
29 Keesje : On short / medium range the 787-3 has it´s own niche (probably 280-340 seats) for which limited market interest has emerged so far. Personally I que
30 OldAeroGuy : I was honoring the thread title.
31 N1120A : Untrue. The A321-200 can actually carry more fuel than the A320-200 and use it effectively. The ACT was a complete failure on the A320-200, but does
32 FLALEFTY : In another thread, an astute poster pointed out that the use of the 757 on routes longer than 2,500 nm is a very niche offering. The A321 has US trans
33 Sllevin : Huh? The 757 has larger holds -- especially aft -- than the 321. remember that the fuselage diameter is larger behind the wing. All very costly for w
34 RJ111 : I'm aware of what it is. Airbus claim that Range with max pax. Gkirk specifically referred to the non 'ER' dubbed 757s (ie IGW) which don't have the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Airbus Never Got A "slice" On Royal Air Maroc? posted Tue Nov 27 2007 01:00:05 by CV990
Why Is It Always The Same Answer? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 00:27:43 by JetBlueGuy2006
Why Airbus Must Respond The B787 Challenge posted Sun May 21 2006 18:31:14 by Eugdog
FI: Airbus To Offer Customers Cash Back On A340s posted Mon Jan 23 2006 11:29:54 by Leelaw
Do Pilots Ever Eat The Same Thing On Board? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 16:33:41 by RootsAir
Why Do They Block The Airline Name On Desert Jets posted Mon Dec 6 2004 17:54:31 by 7E72004
Why Do Charters Fly To Same Airports On Same Days? posted Mon Aug 2 2004 14:47:13 by BCAL
Why Does JAT Use The DC-10 On European Routes? posted Tue Mar 23 2004 21:24:45 by Vio
Airlines That Offer The Best Meal On Their Flights posted Mon Dec 4 2000 03:47:43 by Jm-airbus320
Why Did Delta Paint The New New On A 727 posted Sat Oct 28 2000 17:34:06 by Flying_727