eaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1055 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2344 times:
I've been reading quite a bit about ideas of creating a longer range A321 that would be a B757 replacement. The A321 would probably need new wings and bigger engines and therefore considerable investment.
However, it seems to me that Airbus could easily create a longer range A320 by taking the changes it made to create the A321 and putting them on an A320. This would allow a higher MTOW. The changes would be the following:
- A321 wings and double slotted flaps put on an A320. A321 wings are 4 sq.m. larger than A320 wings.
- Strengthen the A320 structure in a comparable way to the A321.
- Larger A321 engines could be fitted onto an A320.
- Larger fuel tanks from the A321.
- The A321 has a 30,000 lb. higher MTOW than the A320 meaning that the MTOW of the A320 can be increased if the wings are changed.
By doing this Airbus could bring up the MTOW of the A320 without much investment. They've already engineered all these changes on the A321.
Would a longer range A320 NEO created without much cost to Airbus make sense to them. There must be some routes where a longer range A320 could make sense. An A320 on Trans-Atlantic routes would probably make sense somewhere.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 7016 posts, RR: 77
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter): - A321 wings and double slotted flaps put on an A320. A321 wings are 4 sq.m. larger than A320 wings.
Which makes it heavy, which means you negate the improvements slightly...
Have you any idea how much fuel burn the 321 has per seat comparing with the 320?
Did you mean the extra 4 sq.m difference is when the flaps are extended?
A320 tanks come in the following options: 6306 USG (standard), 7069 USG (1ACT), 7835 USG (2ACT)
A321 tanks come in the following options: 6260 USG (standard), 7051 USG (1ACT), 7841 USG (2ACT)
Unless you want to put 2 ACTs in the baggage hold, the 320 actually carries more fuel than the 321.
Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter): - The A321 has a 30,000 lb. higher MTOW than the A320 meaning that the MTOW of the A320 can be increased if the wings are changed.
The problem isn't the wing, but the fuselage, there's a limit to how much you can load per square foot of aircraft floorspace, hence that's where the higher MTOW of the 321 comes from... The wing isn't the problem for the 320MTOW, but yes there are some strengthening, which also makes the 321 heavier in wing construction per cubic foot of wing!
Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter): - Strengthen the A320 structure in a comparable way to the A321.
It's done into the 320 of today whenever it is beneficial... Actually the 319 got these strengthening before the 320.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !