Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 1920 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 13262 times:
Ahh the fantasy world of Keesje...
Interesting concept, but would there be a market for such a thing? I understand the commonality aspect, but the development cost would still be rather heavy (is that a new wing I'm seeing?) Can the A320 design take such a stretch anyway?
And seeing how the A321 and 737-900 (ER) aren't the hottest sellers, it still looks like a niche market.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
A stretched A320 family would weigh 40% less then a A330/787 type of aircraft. It also should have ~ half the frontal area, so maybe fuel consumption would be a few percent better
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13570 posts, RR: 68 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 13224 times:
If I understand it correctly, this aircraft would be single aisle. The 752 and 321 are already painfully narrow when boarding/disembarking. Wouldn't this make turnaround times and food service even more problematical?
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 13190 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
If I understand it correctly, this aircraft would be single aisle. The 752 and 321 are already painfully narrow when boarding/disembarking. Wouldn't this make turnaround times and food service even more problematical?
It would be a long tube, however 5 meters shorter but a wider cabin then the 757-300, so doable I guess.
The big difference from the A321 would be new composites wings and new high BPR engines.
The bigger wing would cater for the higher fuel capasity. 4200nm Range would be with a full passenger cabin / 25 tonnes payload.
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5625 posts, RR: 27 Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 13143 times:
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 1):
And seeing how the A321 and 737-900 (ER) aren't the hottest sellers, it still looks like a niche market
If you ignore Southwest, the 739ER is just as popular as the 73G is. About 15% of 737s produced now are 900ERs.
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 1): Can the A320 design take such a stretch anyway?
I think it would need a new wing and kind of be like the 757/767 combo. I think it could sell 1000 planes in that size. 1000 planes made the 767 economical with commonality to the 757.
My job is to make it so your flight is not delayed. Come fly the friendly skies!
Panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 13067 times:
Not really the product that would sell as much as you think it will.
First, it is not a major extension from the A321. 4.5m only longer.
Then you will need to create a new wing and certify it. Then you will need to create a new engine and certify them.
All these costs for an airplane that will be replaced in a few years. Also, this size will be the upper end of the family of the future A320. (I guess it will be from 140 - 250 seats)
If I was to put my (Airbus's) money on a major upgrade, I would do a light A330-200/300 and use it to cover the same range as your idea, up to 4,300 nm with maximum loads. Removing is easier than creating and testing.
I will then open an assembly line in the US to reduce costs. This will extent a relatively your product for another 20 years.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 13008 times:
Quoting Panais (Reply 6): First, it is not a major extension from the A321. 4.5m only longer.
Then you will need to create a new wing and certify it. Then you will need to create a new engine and certify them.
4.5 meters is 6 rows / 36 passengers. As said this was a quick sketch. The idea is to have at least two versions a A325 and A326. The A326 would be a further stretch. I didn't have time to create a second drawing.
The wing would have to be enlarged to create range and efficiency. The fuselage seems ok. Just like the 727 fuselage was ok for the 757. I think new engines will be required / developed any way. I took a picture of the Leap-X, a few days ago Airbus said they could have a GTF in 2-2.5 years.
Fleets of 757, A300/A310/ 767-200's were sold. Why should this market have evaprated? A "light" A330 or 787 would still be ~twice as heavy and represent an enormous overkill / inefficiency. Bringing the kids to school with an SUV.. The market made clear (787-3) they do not believe in this concept.
I think carriers will be happy to replace twin aisles by cheaper single aisles like has happened on the Atlantic. Replacing 737/320s on city pairs that have 10 flights or more a day with 20% bigger aircraft is a wild proposition for the next decade. Then we have the fact of live many 757's/A310s/767-200s flying around and have to be replaced..
I tend to believe Airbus modelled their forecast a bit around available aircraft types, more then theoretical market requirements.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12906 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 7): Quoting Panais (Reply 6):
First, it is not a major extension from the A321. 4.5m only longer.
Then you will need to create a new wing and certify it. Then you will need to create a new engine and certify them.
4.5 meters is 6 rows / 36 passengers. As said this was a quick sketch. The idea is to have at least two versions a A325 and A326. The A326 would be a further stretch. I didn't have time to create a second drawing.
Panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12664 times:
I am thinking that the title is wrong for this discussion.
It should have been: How the A320 replacement should look like.
Keesje successfully tries to make a point that there is a need for a 220 and a 250 seat narrowbody plane.
Some questions are:
1. What technology needs to be developed (Airframe, wings, landing gears, etc) to satisfy the need for a family from 125 seats to 250 seats capacity (2 class configuration)?
2. What are the expected volumes for each capacity range?
3. If Airbus should drop one end of the range, the 125 or the 250 seat, which one should be?
4. Does a single isle 250 seats plane, validates the Airbus decision not to offer a widebody 250 seat like the 787-8?
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13060 posts, RR: 65 Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12661 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3): The 752 and 321 are already painfully narrow when boarding/disembarking. Wouldn't this make turnaround times and food service even more problematical?
No worse than the 753. Admittedly it isn't great, but the CASM on that type of plane, if it can match the 753, would be enough to make airlines easily overlook that.
Quoting Panais (Reply 6): If I was to put my (Airbus's) money on a major upgrade, I would do a light A330-200/300 and use it to cover the same range as your idea, up to 4,300 nm with maximum loads. Removing is easier than creating and testing.
Problem with that is that a shrink of an A330, even a lightened one, will be heavier than a stretch of a 321.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12552 times:
Quoting Panais (Reply 9): 1. What technology needs to be developed (Airframe, wings, landing gears, etc) to satisfy the need for a family from 125 seats to 250 seats capacity (2 class configuration)?
I think a design succesfully covering this range is virtually mpossible. An aircraft design to match a 757 doing e.g. transcontinentals and also a Xseries / Superjet in a 400nm intra Europe flight would embody to much compromises to be efficient. 150 seats in two class seems a hot spot. So that will be in.
Quoting Panais (Reply 9): What are the expected volumes for each capacity range?
What Airbus thinks is in Reply seven. But they are not objective.
Quoting Panais (Reply 9): 3. If Airbus should drop one end of the range, the 125 or the 250 seat, which one should be?
Higher end I guess. It seems hard to compete agianst dedicated 100-150 short range aircraft with a heavier medium range aircraft a la 737/A320.
Quoting Panais (Reply 9): 4. Does a single isle 250 seats plane, validates the Airbus decision not to offer a widebody 250 seat like the 787-8?
It seems hard to beat a singe aisle design of similar technology with similar seatcount.
Quoting Mir (Reply 10): Problem with that is that a shrink of an A330, even a lightened one, will be heavier than a stretch of a 321.
On GTM basis(gallon ton mile) A332 does fine. However, for thin routes the A326 has about half the GSM(gallon seat mile) of A332. However, the A332 can seat 420 equivalent single class seats, bringing down the GSM to 0.0081.
I still think a much lighter 788 with shorter wings, and optimised for 4,500nm range can have better GSM, and GTM than the A326. I realise that the A326 is an aircraft aimed at thin/short haul routes, and therefore comparisons with B788/A332 may not be very useful.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12104 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12): I still think a much lighter 788 with shorter wings, and optimised for 4,500nm range can have better GSM, and GTM than the A326.
On the 787-3 Boeing managed to shave of 10% OEW. IMO going much lighter is not possible without creating a new aircraft with all costs associated.
As you mention both A330-2000 and 787-800 would have far more passenger and cargo capasity. A 325/A326 would be aimed at markets were you can sell 200-250 seats a day & cargo is not important.
A real inbetween 110+ tonnes long haul twin aisles and 40-50 tonnes narrow bodies is missing in action. I think the 757, A300/A310, 767 and Illyushins left a big gab.. Structurally filling it with heavy twin aisles at current fuel prices is a cash drain.
What are all those leisure airlines flying 757 / 767's going to do? Upgrade to a 787?
Flexo From St Helena, joined Mar 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11911 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3): If I understand it correctly, this aircraft would be single aisle
Wouldn't it be theoretically possible to make it 2-2-2 seating with the new Thompson staggered seats?
That would significantly improve turnaround times!
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, RR: 51 Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11813 times:
Quoting Flexo (Reply 14): Wouldn't it be theoretically possible to make it 2-2-2 seating with the new Thompson staggered seats?
That would significantly improve turnaround times!
I think a slightly wider fuselage would be required, also because of the luggage bin configuration. In the 2-2-2 study below I made 30% of the center seat foldable to enable passengers to switch aisles during (de) boarding.
Flexo From St Helena, joined Mar 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 11754 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
I think a slightly wider fuselage would be required, also because of the luggage bin configuration. In the 2-2-2 study below I made 30% of the center seat foldable to enable passengers to switch aisles during (de) boarding.
Did you use the staggered seats for that study? It seems on the picture like regular seats. Wouldn't staggered seats allow for smaller fuselage diameter?
Why would you want to put in folding seats? There doesn't seem to be a problem with people having to switch aisles during (de)boarding in wide bodies right now or am I missing something?
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6193 posts, RR: 85 Reply 19, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8465 times:
Quoting Panais (Reply 9): Does a single isle 250 seats plane, validates the Airbus decision not to offer a widebody 250 seat like the 787-8?
If the A330-200 isn't like the 250 seat 787-8, what is it like?
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3940 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8166 times:
I suspect Airbus has enough on their plate right now to put this on a pretty low priority. It will also depend on what happens to the A320 family. If Boeing proceeds with the 737RS in 2015 or so (which is the soonest Airbus could get to this) they will have to answer. And seeing that the 757, even though it was very efficient, was not attracting any orders when Boeing shut down the line I think the market for a very long single aisle plane is quite limited. I doubt very much that we will ever see it. We can conceive all kinds of planes that will fulfill certain needs, but the manufacturers have to see enough demand to make it worthwhile to invest the billions necessary to develop the plane. The number of customers who will be unsatisfied with either the A321 or the A332 and insist on something in between I believe to be not enough to warrant the development cost. Besides, Boeing doesn't offer anything in that gap either, since the 757 has ceased production.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8099 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 20): And seeing that the 757, even though it was very efficient, was not attracting any orders when Boeing shut down the line I think the market for a very long single aisle plane is quite limited.
I read this logic all around and I think it is not entirely true. Termination of the line was decided late 03 and production completed 2004. Those were the bad yrs anyway (post 9-11, Gulf war, SARS). Boeing had to cut costsand did. Shortly after the market boomed.
Who is to say if a 757 NG would not have sold, looking at the popularity of the aircraft now and the high A321 sales and Boeing 737-900ER in the yrs after ?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5645 posts, RR: 56 Reply 22, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8015 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
Who is to say if a 757 NG would not have sold, looking at the popularity of the aircraft now and the high A321 sales and Boeing 737-900ER in the yrs after ?
That's a fair point, Keesje, but 757 sales sent to zero two years before the decision to shut the line down. That didn't happen (not even close) to any of the other fleets so, although it may be true that there might be some demand now, it certainly wouldn't be as large as any of the other models.
Given that Boeing is using the former 757 space to build 737's now, which received a *lot* more orders compared to the 757 even during the down time, it seems like a wise business decision.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 4756 posts, RR: 12 Reply 23, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7962 times:
Looking at the A326 you've created a 2 engine DC-8-63 that carries about 15% more pax (294 vs 259) and is slightly less tall (by 1.5m) and 10 tonnes lighter (58 vs 68). Or 17 tonnes lighter than the DC-8-73.
A tribute, perhaps, to the progress in aviation capabilities and design.
Man City p3 w3 d0 l0 f4 a0 P9 - hey it may never happen again!
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7872 times:
Quoting Oly720man (Reply 23): Looking at the A326 you've created a 2 engine DC-8-63 that carries about 15% more pax (294 vs 259) and is slightly less tall (by 1.5m) and 10 tonnes lighter (58 vs 68). Or 17 tonnes lighter than the DC-8-73.
A tribute, perhaps, to the progress in aviation capabilities and design.
If you compare it to a 757-300, its 0.6m longer and carrier 6 more passengers in high density.
757-300 OEW with RB-211s is 64,590kg, about 6 tonnes lighter.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5118 posts, RR: 55 Reply 25, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7737 times:
Beautiful plane. But:
New wing, different engines, new taller and stronger landing gear, and a roughly 5 / 10 m fuselage stretch (325 / 326) over the 321.
What is left? isn't that an entirely new plane? Why not name it A360? (or 370 or 390?)
Me thinks that you are too optimistic about empty weight. A fuselage stretch is a lot more than just a longer tube. Such a long fuselage will have to be a lot stronger than an ordinary 320 fuselage, mainly in the center where a lot more load must be carried during for instance a bumpy landing. Therefore it will end up much heavier per meter than a 320 fuselage.
When a fuselage gets long, then a wider two aisle fuselage soon gets a weight advantage.
If it doesn't get a serious weight advantage over the B753, then there is no market.
You propose this plane as 757, A300/310, 767-200 replacement. But who knows if the airlines want these planes replaced with similar planes? Oders for all these planes simply dried up. In addition the 783 seems to be a no-starter. Maybe they would gladly replace those planes today with a mixture of 319, 73G, 788, 789 or 333 if the old planes were worn out or it otherwise made economic sense?
It will be a huge investment for Airbus with little hope for success.
But the engines are already there. RR will be more than happy to hang a pair of Trent 500 under the wing, maybe a slightly derated version for the 325.
If I was Airbus and had to cover that niche market, then I would take the 330, shorten it to roughly 310 length, undust and update the 310 wing and landing gear blueprints and strap a pair of Trent 500 under the wing. It would be fully as efficient, a lot more comfu, and much cheaper in R&D. That way I would also get a plane which is a full class larger than the 321, and not just another slight stretch with absolutely no further stretch capability.
A thick fuselage does create more drag than a slim one. But the fuselage drag is only a minor part of the total drag of an airliner. By far the most drag is created by the wing, and that drag is mostly liniar with the weight of the plane.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
26 Keesje: Another thread would indicated Boeing sees potetial right in this segment too. Unexpected to most it seems. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ene
27 Zkpilot: Interesting idea Keesje. I did notice however that your diagrams had the aircraft both with 5 sets of doors. Such an aircraft would only require 4 set
28 Liedetectors: Have you addressed tail scrape considerations with your A-325 and 326 concepts? I do not think that the main landing gear is long enough as is and may
29 Parapente: It could be said that Airbus have not had the GTF on test for no reason whatever. So either its the Bombardier engine that they are interested in for
30 Spacepope: I was thinking about this issue as well, as A321 tailscrapes (and even B738) are not unheard of. The redesigned wing of the project lends itself well
31 Keesje: I have not made a side view but I guess a new landing in the new wing would be neccessary, as well as 4 wheel main landing gear, just like the 757. I
32 747400sp: I posted this ideal not to long ago, just in my design, the a/c had smaller version of the A330 wings, and it was 180 feet long. It also had two 48000
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9846 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 1920 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13570 posts, 
From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5625 posts, 
From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 122 posts, 
From St Helena, joined Mar 2007, 402 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 4557 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6193 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5645 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5118 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
