Revelation wrote:

A quick trip to Google gives us a cite from 2008: Cessna's Citation Columbus to have 'hybrid' fly-by-wire

So, yeah, "hybrid fly-by-wire" is a thing, despite what you think.

Did you read that article yourself? Than you would see and know that that is absolutely not the same. With the citation the talk is again about a complete system where the fly by wire is backed up by mechanical control. The mechanical control reduces the need for several independent control computers for safety, but used as an FBW, it is a complete system. The hybrid does not point to a reduced functionality FBW, it is not doing one or two functions only during approach and landing and at take off.
It is still a joke calling the electronical controlled spoilers, an hybrid FBW system and it is far away from what is called FBW.

TP313 wrote:

Fly-by-wire is a system where flight control laws are implemented through an electronic (analogue or digital) system that drives the respective actuators.

In the 737 none of this exists. The pilot directly actuates wire, hydraulic, electric actuators without an electronic mediator.
It is not a Fly-by-wire design.

"Hybrid fly-by-wire" is when control of, at least, one axis is done through an electronic system. This means in control
system theory that a control loop has to be implemented at least for one axis..

Spoiler actuation, electric or otherwise, has little to do with implementation of control loops for the plane's flight control laws.

As spoilers are concerned, saying that we have a "fly-by-wire" or "hybrid fly-by-wire" because we have electrically actuated
spoilers is, IMHO, nonsense, or empty marketing talk.

To me it's not about electrical actuation, it's about a computer providing enhancements such as augmented stability and/or gust alleviation, and that's what both the 747-8 and the 737 MAX hybrid systems will have, from what I've read.

mjoelnir wrote:

Did you read that article yourself? Than you would see and know that that is absolutely not the same. With the citation the talk is again about a complete system where the fly by wire is backed up by mechanical control. The mechanical control reduces the need for several independent control computers for safety, but used as an FBW, it is a complete system. The hybrid does not point to a reduced functionality FBW, it is not doing one or two functions only during approach and landing and at take off.
It is still a joke calling the electronical controlled spoilers, an hybrid FBW system and it is far away from what is called FBW.

And now you throw an insult at me too, sigh...

You must be a lot of fun at cocktail parties...

Revelation wrote:

TP313 wrote:

Fly-by-wire is a system where flight control laws are implemented through an electronic (analogue or digital) system that drives the respective actuators.

In the 737 none of this exists. The pilot directly actuates wire, hydraulic, electric actuators without an electronic mediator.
It is not a Fly-by-wire design.

"Hybrid fly-by-wire" is when control of, at least, one axis is done through an electronic system. This means in control
system theory that a control loop has to be implemented at least for one axis..

Spoiler actuation, electric or otherwise, has little to do with implementation of control loops for the plane's flight control laws.

As spoilers are concerned, saying that we have a "fly-by-wire" or "hybrid fly-by-wire" because we have electrically actuated
spoilers is, IMHO, nonsense, or empty marketing talk.

To me it's not about electrical actuation, it's about a computer providing enhancements such as augmented stability and/or gust alleviation, and that's what both the 747-8 and the 737 MAX hybrid systems will have, from what I've read.

mjoelnir wrote:

Did you read that article yourself? Than you would see and know that that is absolutely not the same. With the citation the talk is again about a complete system where the fly by wire is backed up by mechanical control. The mechanical control reduces the need for several independent control computers for safety, but used as an FBW, it is a complete system. The hybrid does not point to a reduced functionality FBW, it is not doing one or two functions only during approach and landing and at take off.
It is still a joke calling the electronical controlled spoilers, an hybrid FBW system and it is far away from what is called FBW.

And now you throw an insult at me too, sigh...

You must be a lot of fun at cocktail parties...

Yeah, I do not accept grandstanding and I am prepared to call things by their name. Calling an electronical controlled spoiler an FBW is grandstanding, market speach of the worst kind, using big words that do not apply.

Revelation wrote:

TP313 wrote:

Fly-by-wire is a system where flight control laws are implemented through an electronic (analogue or digital) system that drives the respective actuators.

In the 737 none of this exists. The pilot directly actuates wire, hydraulic, electric actuators without an electronic mediator.
It is not a Fly-by-wire design.

"Hybrid fly-by-wire" is when control of, at least, one axis is done through an electronic system. This means in control
system theory that a control loop has to be implemented at least for one axis..

Spoiler actuation, electric or otherwise, has little to do with implementation of control loops for the plane's flight control laws.

As spoilers are concerned, saying that we have a "fly-by-wire" or "hybrid fly-by-wire" because we have electrically actuated
spoilers is, IMHO, nonsense, or empty marketing talk.

To me it's not about electrical actuation, it's about a computer providing enhancements such as augmented stability and/or gust alleviation, and that's what both the 747-8 and the 737 MAX hybrid systems will have, from what I've read...

The 737MAX certainly is not a full fly by wire airplane since primary controls are all mechanically controlled. The fly by wire controls for landing gear and spoilers are being added. The spoilers are used for lateral control, so replacing the giant spoiler mixer with a computer controlled fly by wire system will help add features. Manueaver load alleviation, gust suppression and augmented stability are all possible now that a real computer is controlling the spoilers. The 747-8 similarly has added fly by wire spoilers and outboard elevator. It's a combination of mechanical controls for the primary controls but also includes fly by wire elements to take advantage of some of the latest flight control logic. We can argue about the definition of what hybrid fly by wire is, but all of this is in response to Mjoelnir incorrectly stating that there is no FBW on the 737.

I don't want to feed the trolls, but this explanation might help for those that don't know what fly by wire means:

The MAX has a new fly-by-wire spoiler system. This is officially to improve production flow, reduce weight and improve stopping distances.The spoiler mixer unit has been replaced by a Spoiler Control Electronics (SCE) unit and the ground spoiler control valve is replaced by a Ground Spoiler Control Module (GSCM).

http://www.b737.org.uk/max-spoilers.htm


These are ways that the 737 MAX is staying competitive. Bringing this back on topic, this is an example of how an older design incorporates new technology to remain competitive. The A320neo already has a good starting point, but there are elements of its design that likely will not have all the latest technology developed for the A350 incorporated likely due to engineering design challenges or cost. There will be areas where Airbus will try to improve a new A320neo derivative to compete with the latest that Boeing can develop on an all new 797 design.

I would love to know what type of technology that Airbus would try to bring from the A350 to an A322. Would we see a composite wing? Would they go for a variable camber design? I don't know that much about the A350.

Regarding the MAX gear, the old 3 position lever that has a cable going down to the landing gear selector valve in the wheel well that sends the hydraulic power to the landing gear retract actuators is gone. It has been replaced by a two position lever with switches inside that electronically control a solenoid operated valve that controls the hydraulic pressure to the retract actuators. A computer now handles the gear position instead of a steel cable attached to a lever. I don't think we need a philosophical discussion on whether or not that is a fly by wire system or not with the design change, but it is in my opinion. The section 27-61 general system description section in the 737 MAX maintenance manual says this: "the new fly-by-wire lateral system provides control for the eight flight spoilers and the four ground spoilers via a single spoiler Control Electromcis (SCE) unit" so that should put to rest whether there are fly by wire controls on the 737 MAX or not.

Revelation wrote:

TP313 wrote:

Fly-by-wire is a system where flight control laws are implemented through an electronic (analogue or digital) system that drives the respective actuators.

In the 737 none of this exists. The pilot directly actuates wire, hydraulic, electric actuators without an electronic mediator.
It is not a Fly-by-wire design.

"Hybrid fly-by-wire" is when control of, at least, one axis is done through an electronic system. This means in control
system theory that a control loop has to be implemented at least for one axis..

Spoiler actuation, electric or otherwise, has little to do with implementation of control loops for the plane's flight control laws.

As spoilers are concerned, saying that we have a "fly-by-wire" or "hybrid fly-by-wire" because we have electrically actuated
spoilers is, IMHO, nonsense, or empty marketing talk.

To me it's not about electrical actuation, it's about a computer providing enhancements such as augmented stability and/or gust alleviation, and that's what both the 747-8 and the 737 MAX hybrid systems will have, from what I've read.

By that definition a 310-300 should also be considered a "hybrid fly-by-wire" design (it has computer managed augmented stability).
Wonder why, back in the day, it was not?

TP313 wrote:

By that definition a 310-300 should also be considered a "hybrid fly-by-wire" design (it has computer managed augmented stability).
Wonder why, back in the day, it was not?

Well, the Concorde is largely regarded as the first fly-by-wire commercial airliner even though the computers were analog, so why not?

Newbiepilot wrote:

I would love to know what type of technology that Airbus would try to bring from the A350 to an A322. Would we see a composite wing? Would they go for a variable camber design? I don't know that much about the A350.

Regarding the MAX gear, the old 3 position lever that has a cable going down to the landing gear selector valve in the wheel well that sends the hydraulic power to the landing gear retract actuators is gone. It has been replaced by a two position lever with switches inside that electronically control a solenoid operated valve that controls the hydraulic pressure to the retract actuators. A computer now handles the gear position instead of a steel cable attached to a lever. I don't think we need a philosophical discussion on whether or not that is a fly by wire system or not with the design change, but it is in my opinion. The section 27-61 general system description section in the 737 MAX maintenance manual says this: "the new fly-by-wire lateral system provides control for the eight flight spoilers and the four ground spoilers via a single spoiler Control Electromcis (SCE) unit" so that should put to rest whether there are fly by wire controls on the 737 MAX or not.

Technology moving down from he A380 and A350 have been mainly regarding programs for the flight controls and programs regarding brake control on runways, runway overrun protection and similar systems. ROPS and brake to vacate moved from the A380to the A320 in 2013 for example.

Both the A380 and the A350 are using electronic controlled electric/hydraulic operated actuators in backup or parallel to hydraulics. Both reduced the number of hydraulic systems to two, but increased redundancy to four with 2 independent electrical systems. Both will be controllable with a complete fail of the hydraulics or the fail of power electrics.
Those parts have been or are being tested on the A320 as a way to a more "electric wing". I do not know if that will supplant part of those hydraulics or supplant them completely, but I would bet on a combination of electric and hydraulics as in her bigger sisters.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I would love to know what type of technology that Airbus would try to bring from the A350 to an A322. Would we see a composite wing? Would they go for a variable camber design? I don't know that much about the A350.

Regarding the MAX gear, the old 3 position lever that has a cable going down to the landing gear selector valve in the wheel well that sends the hydraulic power to the landing gear retract actuators is gone. It has been replaced by a two position lever with switches inside that electronically control a solenoid operated valve that controls the hydraulic pressure to the retract actuators. A computer now handles the gear position instead of a steel cable attached to a lever. I don't think we need a philosophical discussion on whether or not that is a fly by wire system or not with the design change, but it is in my opinion. The section 27-61 general system description section in the 737 MAX maintenance manual says this: "the new fly-by-wire lateral system provides control for the eight flight spoilers and the four ground spoilers via a single spoiler Control Electromcis (SCE) unit" so that should put to rest whether there are fly by wire controls on the 737 MAX or not.

Since when does a system (landing gear) that doesn't have anything to do with the flight control system can be classified as fly-by-wire?
It doesn't fly anything.

Could the 737 fly with the old mechanical spoiler system? Of course it could, because it is not a fundamental part of the flight control system.
That's why it is not a fly by wire design.
Now try to fly an A320 without its fly-by-wire...

Revelation wrote:

TP313 wrote:

By that definition a 310-300 should also be considered a "hybrid fly-by-wire" design (it has computer managed augmented stability).
Wonder why, back in the day, it was not?

Well, the Concorde is largely regarded as the first fly-by-wire commercial airliner even though the computers were analog, so why not?

I tell you why not:
because the concorde wouldn't be able to fly without its fly-by-wire, but the A310-200 could damn well fly without the
systems later introduced in the -300. That's why the A310 is not fly-by-wire and the same goes with the 737.

TP313 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I would love to know what type of technology that Airbus would try to bring from the A350 to an A322. Would we see a composite wing? Would they go for a variable camber design? I don't know that much about the A350.

Regarding the MAX gear, the old 3 position lever that has a cable going down to the landing gear selector valve in the wheel well that sends the hydraulic power to the landing gear retract actuators is gone. It has been replaced by a two position lever with switches inside that electronically control a solenoid operated valve that controls the hydraulic pressure to the retract actuators. A computer now handles the gear position instead of a steel cable attached to a lever. I don't think we need a philosophical discussion on whether or not that is a fly by wire system or not with the design change, but it is in my opinion. The section 27-61 general system description section in the 737 MAX maintenance manual says this: "the new fly-by-wire lateral system provides control for the eight flight spoilers and the four ground spoilers via a single spoiler Control Electromcis (SCE) unit" so that should put to rest whether there are fly by wire controls on the 737 MAX or not.

Since when does a system (landing gear) that doesn't have anything to do with the flight control system can be classified as fly-by-wire?
It doesn't fly anything.

Could the 737 fly with the old mechanical spoiler system? Of course it could, because it is not a fundamental part of the flight control system.
That's why it is not a fly by wire design.
Now try to fly an A320 without its fly-by-wire...

I am not saying that the 737 MAX is a fully fly by wire airplane or a fly by wire design. It certainly is not. Pitch controls are full mechanical. Lateral controls have a yaw damper, which is nothing new. The roll controls now have some fly by wire controlled components in the new spoiler system and mechanical ailerons. I don't disagree With you. All I am saying is that Mjoelnir was wrong when he said the 737 MAX has no FBW. It has some fly by wire controls. I will give up on this discussion now since contradicting Mjoelnir is not worth the fight.

With that said it will be interesting what flight control technology improvements would come with a new compsite wing on an A322. It opens up possibilities to architectures like what Mjoelnir was referring to on the A350 and A380.

Newbiepilot wrote:

TP313 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I would love to know what type of technology that Airbus would try to bring from the A350 to an A322. Would we see a composite wing? Would they go for a variable camber design? I don't know that much about the A350.

Regarding the MAX gear, the old 3 position lever that has a cable going down to the landing gear selector valve in the wheel well that sends the hydraulic power to the landing gear retract actuators is gone. It has been replaced by a two position lever with switches inside that electronically control a solenoid operated valve that controls the hydraulic pressure to the retract actuators. A computer now handles the gear position instead of a steel cable attached to a lever. I don't think we need a philosophical discussion on whether or not that is a fly by wire system or not with the design change, but it is in my opinion. The section 27-61 general system description section in the 737 MAX maintenance manual says this: "the new fly-by-wire lateral system provides control for the eight flight spoilers and the four ground spoilers via a single spoiler Control Electromcis (SCE) unit" so that should put to rest whether there are fly by wire controls on the 737 MAX or not.

Since when does a system (landing gear) that doesn't have anything to do with the flight control system can be classified as fly-by-wire?
It doesn't fly anything.

Could the 737 fly with the old mechanical spoiler system? Of course it could, because it is not a fundamental part of the flight control system.
That's why it is not a fly by wire design.
Now try to fly an A320 without its fly-by-wire...

I am not saying that the 737 MAX is a fully fly by wire airplane or a fly by wire design. It certainly is not. Pitch controls are full mechanical. Lateral controls have a yaw damper, which is nothing new. The roll controls now have some fly by wire controlled components in the new spoiler system and mechanical ailerons. I don't disagree With you. All I am saying is that Mjoelnir was wrong when he said the 737 MAX has no FBW. It has some fly by wire controls. I will give up on this discussion now since contradicting Mjoelnir is not worth the fight.

With that said it will be interesting what flight control technology improvements would come with a new compsite wing on an A322. It opens up possibilities to architectures like what Mjoelnir was referring to on the A350 and A380.

Talk about technology lives from clear definitions. It is no use to use words coined to describe a clear defined use suddenly to describe something else. If have now looked at quite a few books, definitions on the net and so on and I found FBW as a description for flying the airplane through inputs in a computer instead of through direct mechanical connections and there the whole complete system.
Calling a computer controlled spoiler a computer controlled spoiler is, I assume, not fancy enough.

I coin now a new word the all electrical airplane, AEA and now call an electric hydraulic operated MLG an AEA MLG. Anywhere were I find an electrical actuator on any airplane I will call that an AEA hybrid airplane, complete nonsense. An all electrical airplane is an all electrical

Talking about the 787 several years back, it was not possible to talk in for decades used technical terms. An variable frequency alternator, became a wild frequency alternator. A frequency converter became an auto transformer, with that word having a completely different definition for a century in electrical engineering.
Use a decades old system the first time in an aeroplane and you need a new and bombastic name for the marketing people.

Having a computer controlled spoiler does not move a frame to having FBW, simple.

I wonder if A.net could be improved by giving users the use of a personal filter to enable them remove from their view certain contributors of the user's choice? I would certainly prefer to not to have to scan read contributors who lack manners, and those who take what in my eyes are ludicrous positions and resolutely decline to either acknowledge error or be silent. .

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

TP313 wrote:

Since when does a system (landing gear) that doesn't have anything to do with the flight control system can be classified as fly-by-wire?
It doesn't fly anything.

Could the 737 fly with the old mechanical spoiler system? Of course it could, because it is not a fundamental part of the flight control system.
That's why it is not a fly by wire design.
Now try to fly an A320 without its fly-by-wire...

I am not saying that the 737 MAX is a fully fly by wire airplane or a fly by wire design. It certainly is not. Pitch controls are full mechanical. Lateral controls have a yaw damper, which is nothing new. The roll controls now have some fly by wire controlled components in the new spoiler system and mechanical ailerons. I don't disagree With you. All I am saying is that Mjoelnir was wrong when he said the 737 MAX has no FBW. It has some fly by wire controls. I will give up on this discussion now since contradicting Mjoelnir is not worth the fight.

With that said it will be interesting what flight control technology improvements would come with a new compsite wing on an A322. It opens up possibilities to architectures like what Mjoelnir was referring to on the A350 and A380.

Talk about technology lives from clear definitions. It is no use to use words coined to describe a clear defined use suddenly to describe something else. If have now looked at quite a few books, definitions on the net and so on and I found FBW as a description for flying the airplane through inputs in a computer instead of through direct mechanical connections and there the whole complete system.
Calling a computer controlled spoiler a computer controlled spoiler is, I assume, not fancy enough.

I coin now a new word the all electrical airplane, AEA and now call an electric hydraulic operated MLG an AEA MLG. Anywhere were I find an electrical actuator on any airplane I will call that an AEA hybrid airplane, complete nonsense. An all electrical airplane is an all electrical

Talking about the 787 several years back, it was not possible to talk in for decades used technical terms. An variable frequency alternator, became a wild frequency alternator. A frequency converter became an auto transformer, with that word having a completely different definition for a century in electrical engineering.
Use a decades old system the first time in an aeroplane and you need a new and bombastic name for the marketing people.

Having a computer controlled spoiler does not move a frame to having FBW, simple.

Sounds like you dispute what is in the 737 maintenance manual. You should take that up with Boeing. Why don't you give them a call to register your complaint that their AMM describes the spoiler system as fly by wire and how that doesn't meet your definition?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/servic ... r-support/

Egerton wrote:

I wonder if A.net could be improved by giving users the use of a personal filter to enable them remove from their view certain contributors of the user's choice? I would certainly prefer to not to have to scan read contributors who lack manners, and those who take what in my eyes are ludicrous positions and resolutely decline to either acknowledge error or be silent. .

You can use the add FOE feature to hide posts from certain users.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Egerton wrote:

I wonder if A.net could be improved by giving users the use of a personal filter to enable them remove from their view certain contributors of the user's choice? I would certainly prefer to not to have to scan read contributors who lack manners, and those who take what in my eyes are ludicrous positions and resolutely decline to either acknowledge error or be silent. .

You can use the add FOE feature to hide posts from certain users.

Thanks

Newbiepilot wrote:

I would love to know what type of technology that Airbus would try to bring from the A350 to an A322. Would we see a composite wing? Would they go for a variable camber design? I don't know that much about the A350.

To try and bring the thread back on track .....

One assumes that the A320 plus plus has both a new wing and a stretch.
A new wing would clearly be an all-new CFRP wing (I'd guess in the 42m-45m span range)
If so, it will unquestionably IMO incorporate the best tech it can, including the variable camber and span-wise flaps from the A350.

The A320 is going to go 2E2H whether there is a MOM or not, so figure on commonality with the A350/A380 systems

Also per the conversation earlier, 3D printed parts will continue to evolve on the A320 platform subject to the trade-off constraints Mjoelnir identified in that informative 3D printing post. Whether there is a MOM or not.

Keejse also posted some assumptions on fuel tankage - I have some concerns about these.
By my fag-packet calcs, a 5 000Nm range A322 with a fuselage 1m longer than the 757-200, with the above wing, would need to be of the order of 108t-110t MTOW, and would need about 30t of fuel tanked to achieve its range.
I think that is an issue if it is going to require ACT's to achieve this (or at least lots of them)

Airbus will want to keep the wing wetted area to a minimum, so there's a trade-off between that and the fuel capacity.

I'm guessing a new wing would also mean a new centre wing box. But I believe (and I think the MAX and 777X experience reflect this) that the confluence of systems that any aircraft will experience in its architecture makes putting a bigger wing box into an existing design really difficult unless the airframer embarks on some serious system re-integration.
I think if Airbus are serious about the "low-cost A320 derivative", they will try and keep this sort of stuff to a minimum.
hence why I think achieving 5 000nm is more of an issue for the A320 ++ than it is for an all-new MOM

Just some thoughts

Rgds

Sounds like you dispute what is in the 737 maintenance manual. You should take that up with Boeing. Why don't you give them a call to register your complaint that their AMM describes the spoiler system as fly by wire and how that doesn't meet your definition?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/servic ... r-support/[/quote]


What's your own definition of "fly-by-wire"? If you have only the Boeing maintenance manual that uses the term, then maybe you need to Google a bit more, or go out more often!

Fly-by-wire is as someone above explains where an algorithm is actually controlling the flight characteristics of the aircraft in flight without human input. That algorithm started out running on an analogue computer (e.g. Concorde) but has obviously moved apace with IT evolution to where it is today. The earlier definition suggested that at a minimum, the FBW algorithm controlled at least one axes of the aircraft's flight!

Extending the landing gear electrically when the pilot presses a button is not FBW! What a suggestion! Moreover, it seems that Boeing has written it up in the manual quoted above as "FBW"! How funny!

Newbiepilot wrote:

Sounds like you dispute what is in the 737 maintenance manual. You should take that up with Boeing. Why don't you give them a call to register your complaint that their AMM describes the spoiler system as fly by wire and how that doesn't meet your definition?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/servic ... r-support/

Yes using it there is quite a joke. But what can you expect from people who coined wild frequency instead of variable frequency and used auto transformer instead of frequency controller around the 787. Had people scrambling for dictionaries and text books. In the case of wild frequency you could not find anything and auto transformer had been used for something completely different for more than a century.

Thank you Astuteman for bringing it back on track.
Yup a 'full' MOM response (Boeing definition mind).May require a whole lot of work.
They may well choose to do nothing (they are under no pressure to do so).
The trick (as I see it).Is to preserve their 'ownership' of the present 'top end' of the narrowbodied market whilst keeping their powder dry for something bigger later on,
It's really a question of what more can be fond to the existing fundamental aircraft without incurring huge additional costs.
I think they would like to offer a (min change) 250 pax aircraft if it is possible.Only they know that answer I feel.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Sounds like you dispute what is in the 737 maintenance manual. You should take that up with Boeing. Why don't you give them a call to register your complaint that their AMM describes the spoiler system as fly by wire and how that doesn't meet your definition?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/servic ... r-support/

Yes using it there is quite a joke. But what can you expect from people who coined wild frequency instead of variable frequency and used auto transformer instead of frequency controller around the 787. Had people scrambling for dictionaries and text books. In the case of wild frequency you could not find anything and auto transformer had been used for something completely different for more than a century.

It sounds like you think you know more than the Boeing engineers who actually design and build the planes. I can't help you with your hatred of Boeing.

Back on track, Astuteman, I couldn't agree more with the design challenges and constraints with a stretched and higher payload A322. The challenges with design creep if the wing grows, requiring a bigger wing box and revision to the systems architecture could be cost prohibitive or beyond the scope of a supplemental type certificate.

astuteman wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I would love to know what type of technology that Airbus would try to bring from the A350 to an A322. Would we see a composite wing? Would they go for a variable camber design? I don't know that much about the A350.

To try and bring the thread back on track .....

One assumes that the A320 plus plus has both a new wing and a stretch.
A new wing would clearly be an all-new CFRP wing (I'd guess in the 42m-45m span range)
If so, it will unquestionably IMO incorporate the best tech it can, including the variable camber and span-wise flaps from the A350.

The A320 is going to go 2E2H whether there is a MOM or not, so figure on commonality with the A350/A380 systems

Also per the conversation earlier, 3D printed parts will continue to evolve on the A320 platform subject to the trade-off constraints Mjoelnir identified in that informative 3D printing post. Whether there is a MOM or not.

Keejse also posted some assumptions on fuel tankage - I have some concerns about these.
By my fag-packet calcs, a 5 000Nm range A322 with a fuselage 1m longer than the 757-200, with the above wing, would need to be of the order of 108t-110t MTOW, and would need about 30t of fuel tanked to achieve its range.
I think that is an issue if it is going to require ACT's to achieve this (or at least lots of them)

Airbus will want to keep the wing wetted area to a minimum, so there's a trade-off between that and the fuel capacity.

I'm guessing a new wing would also mean a new centre wing box. But I believe (and I think the MAX and 777X experience reflect this) that the confluence of systems that any aircraft will experience in its architecture makes putting a bigger wing box into an existing design really difficult unless the airframer embarks on some serious system re-integration.
I think if Airbus are serious about the "low-cost A320 derivative", they will try and keep this sort of stuff to a minimum.
hence why I think achieving 5 000nm is more of an issue for the A320 ++ than it is for an all-new MOM

Just some thoughts

Rgds

I am still thinking that if Airbus will do a re winged or re winged and stretched A321, it will be not a replacement for the A321 but an additional version.
Added range will lead to higher fuel burn on shorter distances. The current A321 is fine on 3,200 nm and the A321 will be fine up to 3,500 nm.

A322, new wings no stretch, would replace the A321LR. New longer wings, with bigger fuel tanks, more sweepback for somewhat higher cruise speed. IMO their is no need for a new wing box or a new MLG apart from adding a dual bogie. The engines could stay the same, the 757 started out with 36,600 lbs to lift a higher MTOW than expected here. Than one does a stretch to about 50 m whole length to do a A323.

One could do this quick and dirty and fast to the market with a redesign of the current wing. Or one goes for a more expensive way with a new CFRP wing, than of course the new patented wing box and the possibility of a second smaller new wing for the current frames. That would not only bring a capable medium haul frame sett against a possible Boeing MoM, it would also putt pressure on the 737MAX and even on plans for a new narrow body concept at Boeing.

Astuteman wrote:

By my fag-packet calcs, a 5 000Nm range A322 with a fuselage 1m longer than the 757-200, with the above wing, would need to be of the order of 108t-110t MTOW, and would need about 30t of fuel tanked to achieve its range.

IIRC this seemed like a reasonable estimate last you posted. Keesje can you give any numerical argument for your finding about A322/3 wing tankage?

Astuteman wrote:

I'm guessing a new wing would also mean a new centre wing box. But I believe (and I think the MAX and 777X experience reflect this) that the confluence of systems that any aircraft will experience in its architecture makes putting a bigger wing box into an existing design really difficult unless the airframer embarks on some serious system re-integration.
I think if Airbus are serious about the "low-cost A320 derivative", they will try and keep this sort of stuff to a minimum.
hence why I think achieving 5 000nm is more of an issue for the A320 ++ than it is for an all-new MOM

By "confluence of systems" do you mean the physical need to rework/move systems placement when expanding the wingbox?
This actually does seem like a bit of a quandary as the A321 wing is already high-AR and will need to grow in size (and sweep if optimized for ~.85M).
OTOH it doesn't seem insuperable if Airbus uses a truncated span-centerbox sweep a la A380. I've never heard that feature to cost a lot in structural efficiency.

Re systems generally, are you suggesting a new architecture there? Pretty sure the 777X is not getting new systems; the benefits don't seem to be worth the trouble yet -
all the hype about 787's systems hasn't seemed to pan out (although 777X keeps 1994 systems for 2020; A321++ would have 1980's systems for ~2022 - maybe then it's worth it?).

The 777-8/9 seems to keep the old wing box from the 777, so I do not see the principle need for a new wing box when doing a new wing for a move to a A322. With moving the tankage into the wing, most of the extra weight would end up in the wing so stresses should not increase to much.

The 777-8/9 have quite a few systems changes as a result of the new composite wing. However the airframe itself and wingbox are still supporting the same MTOW. With no change in maximum takeoff weight, the loads on the wingbox are not dramatically changing. The increased capacity and range come from more efficient engines and a bigger wing.

The A322 likely would have a bigger wing, but the A321 already has the most efficient engines. A new wing alone is unlikely to be able to increase capacity and range that much without an increase in MTOW. Once MTOW increases significantly, systems start having to be up sized and the wingbox will need to be redesigned and strengthened to support the heavier airplane.

I see the A322 having higher payloads so it depends on how much more weight the wingbox can take before significant redesign is required.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 777-8/9 have quite a few systems changes as a result of the new composite wing. However the airframe itself and wingbox are still supporting the same MTOW. With no change in maximum takeoff weight, the loads on the wingbox are not dramatically changing. The increased capacity and range come from more efficient engines and a bigger wing.

The A322 likely would have a bigger wing, but the A321 already has the most efficient engines. A new wing alone is unlikely to be able to increase capacity and range that much without an increase in MTOW. Once MTOW increases significantly, systems start having to be up sized and the wingbox will need to be redesigned and strengthened to support the heavier airplane.

I see the A322 having higher payloads so it depends on how much more weight the wingbox can take before significant redesign is required.

Airbus has been steadily increasing MTOW on the same wing box and it is used from the A318 to the A321. Having bigger wings and more weight in the wings could even be stress alleviating, all the MTOW increase could end up in the wing. I of course do not know if the A321 wing box has still reserves, I am speculating as everybody else.

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus has been steadily increasing MTOW on the same wing box and it is used from the A318 to the A321. Having bigger wings and more weight in the wings could even be stress alleviating, all the MTOW increase could end up in the wing. I of course do not know if the A321 wing box has still reserves, I am speculating as everybody else.

unless payload gets significantly increased wing box loading may even be lower if fuel weight moves from the ACTs in the Fuselage into the wings.

best regards
Thomas

Ti would be good place to use the new CFRP wingbox anyway.

astuteman wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I would love to know what type of technology that Airbus would try to bring from the A350 to an A322. Would we see a composite wing? Would they go for a variable camber design? I don't know that much about the A350.

To try and bring the thread back on track .....

One assumes that the A320 plus plus has both a new wing and a stretch.
A new wing would clearly be an all-new CFRP wing (I'd guess in the 42m-45m span range)
If so, it will unquestionably IMO incorporate the best tech it can, including the variable camber and span-wise flaps from the A350.

The A320 is going to go 2E2H whether there is a MOM or not, so figure on commonality with the A350/A380 systems

Also per the conversation earlier, 3D printed parts will continue to evolve on the A320 platform subject to the trade-off constraints Mjoelnir identified in that informative 3D printing post. Whether there is a MOM or not.

Keejse also posted some assumptions on fuel tankage - I have some concerns about these.
By my fag-packet calcs, a 5 000Nm range A322 with a fuselage 1m longer than the 757-200, with the above wing, would need to be of the order of 108t-110t MTOW, and would need about 30t of fuel tanked to achieve its range.
I think that is an issue if it is going to require ACT's to achieve this (or at least lots of them)

Airbus will want to keep the wing wetted area to a minimum, so there's a trade-off between that and the fuel capacity.

I'm guessing a new wing would also mean a new centre wing box. But I believe (and I think the MAX and 777X experience reflect this) that the confluence of systems that any aircraft will experience in its architecture makes putting a bigger wing box into an existing design really difficult unless the airframer embarks on some serious system re-integration.
I think if Airbus are serious about the "low-cost A320 derivative", they will try and keep this sort of stuff to a minimum.
hence why I think achieving 5 000nm is more of an issue for the A320 ++ than it is for an all-new MOM

Just some thoughts

Rgds

How would the new wing + A321 fuse fare with 5000nm range? I don't think the streatched version necessarily needs the 5000nm range, TATL range (4200nm) may be enough if it can be flown with a meaningful payload of pax + cargo.

350helmi

Interesting quote (I thought)
2016 in Leeham
Jeff Knittal president CIT.
'The average stage length of the A330 is 1,800 miles.'

I find that astonishing!If remotely true it would suggest 3-4K nm would easily cover most stages.That is obviously true for any 797 but also suggests that Airbus are not far off in range terms even now for the 320 family.

Looking at what Airbus did it the A330 wing (extended it,added 350 wingtip,revised wing twist and revised belly fairing).I wonder whether something similar could not be done to create a 'simple' A322 that has a small stretch to 250 pax one class at 29" with 'enough' range for most stages.

350helmi wrote:

How would the new wing + A321 fuse fare with 5000nm range?

How long is a piece of string?
Its less a case of a new wing giving a range its more about deciding the mission profile for which the wing should be designed given certain assumptions, at this point its more of a business decision problem than an engineering problem.

Fred

tommy1808 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus has been steadily increasing MTOW on the same wing box and it is used from the A318 to the A321. Having bigger wings and more weight in the wings could even be stress alleviating, all the MTOW increase could end up in the wing. I of course do not know if the A321 wing box has still reserves, I am speculating as everybody else.

unless payload gets significantly increased wing box loading may even be lower if fuel weight moves from the ACTs in the Fuselage into the wings.

best regards
Thomas

I don't think any of us know what the existing wingbox is capable of. Did they max it out with the A321LR? It is hard to know without the detailed engineering stress analysis.

parapente wrote:

Interesting quote (I thought)
2016 in Leeham
Jeff Knittal president CIT.
'The average stage length of the A330 is 1,800 miles.'

I find that astonishing!If remotely true it would suggest 3-4K nm would easily cover most stages.That is obviously true for any 797 but also suggests that Airbus are not far off in range terms even now for the 320 family.

Looking at what Airbus did it the A330 wing (extended it,added 350 wingtip,revised wing twist and revised belly fairing).I wonder whether something similar could not be done to create a 'simple' A322 that has a small stretch to 250 pax one class at 29" with 'enough' range for most stages.

The average stage length can be a red Herring. An airline flies a certain route. The aircraft stands unused for 6 hours at the home airport, because it has to wait for the next trip. The aircraft being unused is used for a 1 hour journey back and force. Average stage length immediately goes way down, but does not reflect the real use of that frame. Beside an average we would also have to know the distribution of stage length.

The A330 has a big wing and so much tankage, that even used as a tanker aircraft no ACTs needed to be installed. One of the advantages with a new wing for an "A322" would be, that the fuel would move out of the belly into the wing.

Well I will bow to your greater knowledge.But the guy saying it was (I think) trying to make a valid point with no axe to grind.
Obviously an average is made up of smaller and greater stages.Clearly a 330 can do most stages big or small.

I don't question that Boeing may have found an interesting range area (4knm - 5.5knm).But I get the impression there is a load of biz below that which a min change 322 could do with far less modification.

Jeff Knittal president CIT.
'The average stage length of the A330 is 1,800 miles.'

The average widebody has 2.23 engines.

The most conservative approach for Airbus would be to design / adjust based upon minimum requirements.

Stretch a few meters for longhaul cabin requirements, enlarge the wing to get the fuel onboard & enhance wingloading.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 777-8/9 have quite a few systems changes as a result of the new composite wing. However the airframe itself and wingbox are still supporting the same MTOW. With no change in maximum takeoff weight, the loads on the wingbox are not dramatically changing. The increased capacity and range come from more efficient engines and a bigger wing.

The A322 likely would have a bigger wing, but the A321 already has the most efficient engines. A new wing alone is unlikely to be able to increase capacity and range that much without an increase in MTOW. Once MTOW increases significantly, systems start having to be up sized and the wingbox will need to be redesigned and strengthened to support the heavier airplane.

I see the A322 having higher payloads so it depends on how much more weight the wingbox can take before significant redesign is required.

As a point of order, my "fag-packet" calculation for the A322 assumes engine SFC improves by 5% over the A321LR, based on P+W press releases relating to the P+W 1100G's development.

Rgds

Airbus response?
Well right now there is nothing to respond to! And Airbus are holding the trump card (A321NEO).
Over the next 24 months Airbus will be 'responding' with the already announced developments.The 240 seater version,the 210 seater that will fly 4,100 nm (LR) and a brand new 350 style interior that even gives an extra inch width.So plenty there.
If they could find an extra 200nm from somewhere then the LR would be even more compelling.
Until (and if) Boeing launch 'something' they would only be competing with themselves.Look at the Max 9 to Max10.Massive cannibalism.Thats the danger of a 322 it may simply steal sales from the 321LR.So that would be terrible business.

Taking their 'plus' incremental route.What else might they do?
I have read here of the new electric flap system they are testing.
They are testing some 'lift bump' on the fuse next to the wing root.
One assumes they are testing the Carbon wing box on their 'Iron bird'?
Revised wing body fairing?They were going to look at that a few years ago.
What about A380 type 'scimitar feathers' that they have recently shown.That would be worth 1-2%.

Add all that up and there would be plenty to talk about to their customers!
Note.Isnt there a 4 year waiting list anyway?

Maybe the Mom Hype needs to cool down a bit. According to the German Flug Revue Mike Sinnett from Boeing said that the "MoM would offer trip costs lower than a fully depreciated A330CEO" and made no comparison to a single aisle plane. If we consider about 5-8% capital costs for trip costs, and about 25-30% fuel burn costs, we are probably looking at fuel burn delta of a bit over 20% compared to an early A330CEO. That is realistic, but far from revolutionary.

seahawk wrote:

Maybe the Mom Hype needs to cool down a bit. According to the German Flug Revue Mike Sinnett from Boeing said that the "MoM would offer trip costs lower than a fully depreciated A330CEO" and made no comparison to a single aisle plane. If we consider about 5-8% capital costs for trip costs, and about 25-30% fuel burn costs, we are probably looking at fuel burn delta of a bit over 20% compared to an early A330CEO. That is realistic, but far from revolutionary.

I would say it is far from impressive for a new clean-sheet, hyped-up aircraft. I get a feeling of déjà vu.

I guess they are comparing the MOM to an old A330-200. The new information here is that we again see that Boeing is positioning the 797 at the medium haul A330 market, and won't go head to head with the A321LR and a possible A322.

seahawk wrote:

Maybe the Mom Hype needs to cool down a bit. According to the German Flug Revue Mike Sinnett from Boeing said that the "MoM would offer trip costs lower than a fully depreciated A330CEO" and made no comparison to a single aisle plane. If we consider about 5-8% capital costs for trip costs, and about 25-30% fuel burn costs, we are probably looking at fuel burn delta of a bit over 20% compared to an early A330CEO. That is realistic, but far from revolutionary.

Wasn't that the original goal of the 787?

So 15 years and 10s of Billion dollars later we're still stuck in the same spot...

TP313 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Maybe the Mom Hype needs to cool down a bit. According to the German Flug Revue Mike Sinnett from Boeing said that the "MoM would offer trip costs lower than a fully depreciated A330CEO" and made no comparison to a single aisle plane. If we consider about 5-8% capital costs for trip costs, and about 25-30% fuel burn costs, we are probably looking at fuel burn delta of a bit over 20% compared to an early A330CEO. That is realistic, but far from revolutionary.

Wasn't that the original goal of the 787?

So 15 years and 10s of Billion dollars later we're still stuck in the same spot...

The 787 was supposed to be 20% better than the 767.

If the 797 beats the A330CEO by 20-25% fuel burn then it will destroy the A330-800 business case. It would have 6-10% lower fuel burn than the A330neo and if Boeing can come close to their production cost target also cost less to build. Airbus will need some type of response if they don't want to sacrifice the A330neo.

Newbiepilot wrote:

TP313 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Maybe the Mom Hype needs to cool down a bit. According to the German Flug Revue Mike Sinnett from Boeing said that the "MoM would offer trip costs lower than a fully depreciated A330CEO" and made no comparison to a single aisle plane. If we consider about 5-8% capital costs for trip costs, and about 25-30% fuel burn costs, we are probably looking at fuel burn delta of a bit over 20% compared to an early A330CEO. That is realistic, but far from revolutionary.

Wasn't that the original goal of the 787?

So 15 years and 10s of Billion dollars later we're still stuck in the same spot...

The 787 was supposed to be 20% better than the 767.

If the 797 beats the A330CEO by 20-25% fuel burn then it will destroy the A330-800 business case. It would have 6-10% lower fuel burn than the A330neo and if Boeing can come close to their production cost target also cost less to build. Airbus will need some type of response if they don't want to sacrifice the A330neo.

Well that makes sense but it's a whole world away from the "widebody with narrowbody economics" rhetoric.

Meanwhile the 321NEO keeps to itself most of the 757 replacement market.

To make a connection to the comment of "widebody with narrowbody economics" we need more information. What is the projected fuel burn per seat difference between an A321neo and A339 in an all economy configuration flying 4-5 hour flights? An A330-300 burns a little more than double the fuel of an A321. In all economy like Cebu Pacific has an A330 has 80% more seats (436 vs 240). 20-25% better fuel burn than the A330CEO will bring down fuel burn per seat into the range of the A321, but there are way too many assumptions and estimates to say anything accurate at this point.

But is there a business case for the 330-8 at all?It certainly does not look like it with present (lack of) sales.Boeing already have a better aircraft in that gap (BA seem to like it a lot and have recently swapped -9's for -8's).Hardly worth spending ten's of billions for that methinks.
No it has to be the A321NEO NEO LR they are after.Its the only thing that makes commercial logic.

Newbiepilot wrote:

If the 797 beats the A330CEO by 20-25% fuel burn then it will destroy the A330-800 business case. It would have 6-10% lower fuel burn than the A330neo and if Boeing can come close to their production cost target also cost less to build. Airbus will need some type of response if they don't want to sacrifice the A330neo.

If Boeing spend $8-10 billion producing an aircraft to eliminate an aircraft that maybe cost Airbus about $1 billion to make then I have to wonder about senior management's judgement at Boeing especially since such an aircraft seems to be a number of years away yet. Airbus will probably have recouped their expenditure on the A330 NEO by then.

Newbiepilot wrote:

TP313 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Maybe the Mom Hype needs to cool down a bit. According to the German Flug Revue Mike Sinnett from Boeing said that the "MoM would offer trip costs lower than a fully depreciated A330CEO" and made no comparison to a single aisle plane. If we consider about 5-8% capital costs for trip costs, and about 25-30% fuel burn costs, we are probably looking at fuel burn delta of a bit over 20% compared to an early A330CEO. That is realistic, but far from revolutionary.

Wasn't that the original goal of the 787?

So 15 years and 10s of Billion dollars later we're still stuck in the same spot...

The 787 was supposed to be 20% better than the 767.

If the 797 beats the A330CEO by 20-25% fuel burn then it will destroy the A330-800 business case. It would have 6-10% lower fuel burn than the A330neo and if Boeing can come close to their production cost target also cost less to build. Airbus will need some type of response if they don't want to sacrifice the A330neo.

If you don't mind me saying, the journey from ""MoM would offer trip costs lower than a fully depreciated A330CEO" to "Airbus will need some type of response if they don't want to sacrifice the A330NEO" feels like a "giant leap for mankind".
The A330NEO has lower trip costs than an A330CEO. I'm pretty sure the A350-900 has too.
I would seriously expect MOM to have lower trip costs than these planes - it's about half the size.

I'll only point out that anything that threatens the A330NEO to the extent you describe will also wreak irreparable damage to the 787 (except maybe the -10).

Admittedly the A330-800 and 787-8 seem to be yesterday's planes already

One thing is for certain. I'm sure Boeing would rather sell an expensive long-range 787 than a "cut to a narrowbody price" MOM

Rgds

parapente wrote:

But is there a business case for the 330-8 at all?It certainly does not look like it with present (lack of) sales.Boeing already have a better aircraft in that gap (BA seem to like it a lot and have recently swapped -9's for -8's).Hardly worth spending ten's of billions for that methinks.
No it has to be the A321NEO NEO LR they are after.Its the only thing that makes commercial logic.

Depends, you could use that plane and give it a 3 class layout with lie flat biz, premium eco and eco with 30-32" and 33-36" pitch respectively. If you then put the same number of J and Y+ seat into the A321 MoM you would probably see a CASM advantage for the MoM.

So you can make a case for such widebody, although I am not sure that the standard for Y+ and J would be similar to very long routes on typical 4000nmn missions, but if it beats the A330NEO by a clear margin it will also beat the 787 and that might be a problem when it comes to the deferred costs.

astuteman wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

TP313 wrote:

Wasn't that the original goal of the 787?

So 15 years and 10s of Billion dollars later we're still stuck in the same spot...

The 787 was supposed to be 20% better than the 767.

If the 797 beats the A330CEO by 20-25% fuel burn then it will destroy the A330-800 business case. It would have 6-10% lower fuel burn than the A330neo and if Boeing can come close to their production cost target also cost less to build. Airbus will need some type of response if they don't want to sacrifice the A330neo.

If you don't mind me saying, the journey from ""MoM would offer trip costs lower than a fully depreciated A330CEO" to "Airbus will need some type of response if they don't want to sacrifice the A330NEO" feels like a "giant leap for mankind".
The A330NEO has lower trip costs than an A330CEO. I'm pretty sure the A350-900 has too.
I would seriously expect MOM to have lower trip costs than these planes - it's about half the size.

I'll only point out that anything that threatens the A330NEO to the extent you describe will also wreak irreparable damage to the 787 (except maybe the -10).

Admittedly the A330-800 and 787-8 seem to be yesterday's planes already

One thing is for certain. I'm sure Boeing would rather sell an expensive long-range 787 than a "cut to a narrowbody price" MOM

Rgds

Yes it is a stretch. With that said, if the largest 797 derivative has lower trip costs with similar capacity to the A332 including capital costs for a fully depreciated A332 on regional routes, the 797 will have a market. There are a number of A330s flying regional flights in Asia. As I said earlier, there could be a strong market for flights between CAN, HKG, SIN, TPE, BKK, ICN, NRT, PVG, PEK, KIX, etc. I see where Boeing is trying to position the 797. Demand in Asia is still booming and airports have capacity limits. The A380 had a minimal impact in reducing a significant number of frequencies at most airports. A 797 could replace A321s and A330s flying regional flights. Lower trip costs than a fully depreciated A330 is a key factor in sales campaigns and I think would certainly provoke a response from Airbus. It would also undercut short haul 787 operations.

This is a stretch, but if a 797 pushes the A330neo out of the shorter range widebody market by having 6-10% lower fuel burn and lower aquisition costs future sales of that plane will suffer. I don't know if Boeing can succeed in doing that and I bet Airbus is waiting to see if Boeing can do that as well, but if they can, Airbus will have to respond.