JoeCanuck wrote:

Revelation wrote:

In https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... r-everett/ we read:

Hazy said the A321XLR will dispense with the separate auxiliary fuel tanks and instead put the extra fuel into an expanded center wing tank that’s an integral part of the airframe. Airbus will make other tweaks and increase the maximum take-off weight, allowing it to carry an extra four tons of fuel and increasing the range to about 4,400 nautical miles, Hazy said.

Airbus has in the past talked about more drastic upgrades, such as stretching the fuselage by a couple of seat rows or even putting on a new wing. Hazy said those options would be much more costly — a new wing would add $2 billion —and are “not top of the list.”

He said the less costly XLR concept would give the A321 a range above that of Boeing’s now out-of-production 757, a plane many airlines are seeking to replace.

That would make the XLR “a true transatlantic airplane,” Hazy said, and “a much more formidable competitor to the 797.”

So we see an A321XLR that will move the extra fuel storage out of aux tanks and into an expanded center wing box

And we see A321+ (stretch) and A321++ (new CFRP wing) are, ummm, what's the word... someone help me...

Well if nothing else, A321+/++ are "not top of the list" and so A321XLR is "top of the list", at least according to SUH's insider gossip.

This seems like a smart incremental step...picking the low hanging fruit first. With Boeing pushing the launch, (and the final design), of the 797 further out, there really isn't any pressing need for Airbus to radially modify the 321. I have no doubt that stretches and new wings have their own office in Airbus HQ, but why not, when it all this type of R&D costs is salaries, computers and office space?

They can get 95% of the design work done without touching anything more than a keyboard.

Very true. Design helps them understand the complexity of the task and the cost. In the Seattle Times article, its Udvar-Hazy speaking, not Airbus execs. While he will definitely have more insider info on the programs at Airbus and Boeing, he may not be fully privy to all the design considerations or plans of both companies.

Revelation wrote:

In https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... r-everett/ we read:

Hazy said the A321XLR will dispense with the separate auxiliary fuel tanks and instead put the extra fuel into an expanded center wing tank that’s an integral part of the airframe. Airbus will make other tweaks and increase the maximum take-off weight, allowing it to carry an extra four tons of fuel and increasing the range to about 4,400 nautical miles, Hazy said.

Airbus has in the past talked about more drastic upgrades, such as stretching the fuselage by a couple of seat rows or even putting on a new wing. Hazy said those options would be much more costly — a new wing would add $2 billion —and are “not top of the list.”

He said the less costly XLR concept would give the A321 a range above that of Boeing’s now out-of-production 757, a plane many airlines are seeking to replace.

That would make the XLR “a true transatlantic airplane,” Hazy said, and “a much more formidable competitor to the 797.”

So we see an A321XLR that will move the extra fuel storage out of aux tanks and into an expanded center wing box

And we see A321+ (stretch) and A321++ (new CFRP wing) are, ummm, what's the word... someone help me...

Well if nothing else, A321+/++ are "not top of the list" and so A321XLR is "top of the list", at least according to SUH's insider gossip.

Really good information that goes beyond pontifications that we frequently see. I think that makes a lot of sense. I wonder how efficiency is affected by these modifications to add more fuel.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

In https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... r-everett/ we read:

Hazy said the A321XLR will dispense with the separate auxiliary fuel tanks and instead put the extra fuel into an expanded center wing tank that’s an integral part of the airframe. Airbus will make other tweaks and increase the maximum take-off weight, allowing it to carry an extra four tons of fuel and increasing the range to about 4,400 nautical miles, Hazy said.

Airbus has in the past talked about more drastic upgrades, such as stretching the fuselage by a couple of seat rows or even putting on a new wing. Hazy said those options would be much more costly — a new wing would add $2 billion —and are “not top of the list.”

He said the less costly XLR concept would give the A321 a range above that of Boeing’s now out-of-production 757, a plane many airlines are seeking to replace.

That would make the XLR “a true transatlantic airplane,” Hazy said, and “a much more formidable competitor to the 797.”

So we see an A321XLR that will move the extra fuel storage out of aux tanks and into an expanded center wing box

And we see A321+ (stretch) and A321++ (new CFRP wing) are, ummm, what's the word... someone help me...

Well if nothing else, A321+/++ are "not top of the list" and so A321XLR is "top of the list", at least according to SUH's insider gossip.

Really good information that goes beyond pontifications that we frequently see. I think that makes a lot of sense. I wonder how efficiency is affected by these modifications to add more fuel.

A couple of really big bonuses to putting fuel in the wingbox, is that they don't have to add any structure to the wing itself, (unless they need to strengthen the wing for an increase in MTOW), and they won't affect the CofG. Also, more room for luggage or cargo in the hold.

Both Airbus and Boeing are being pretty creative to get the most out of their work horses.

Could this be the CFRP wingbox?

seahawk wrote:

Could this be the CFRP wingbox?

That would be ideal from a technical POV looking at future option like adding a composite wing and/or fuselage length adjustments.


Anyway CFRP or not, would be interesting to know what the weight delta of this proposed design would be compared to the three ACT's plus plumbing.

It might also mean that an "A322" length with a new CFRP wing with a furter fuel volume addition would still have very decent range.

Revelation wrote:

In https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... r-everett/ we read:

[...]

So we see an A321XLR that will move the extra fuel storage out of aux tanks and into an expanded center wing box

The A321neo, without any aux tanks, can carry approximately 19.2 t fuel. Each aux tank adds approximately 2.43 t of fuel. With three aux tanks this amounts to 7.3 t and a maximum of 26.6 t of fuel loaded.

What I don't understand is the reference to 4 t of additional fuel in the A321 XLR and 400 nm extra range. The A321 doesn't need 4 t to fly 400 nm further. This just doesn't add up.

Either the reference to 400 nm additional range in incorrect, or it might be that the A321 XLR is replacing one aux tank with additional fuel in an expanded center tank? With the former the A321 XLR would have a total of 30.6 t of fuel, which should give it a range of something like 4700 nm, or if the latter is correct the A321 XLR would carry a maximum of 28.2 t of fuel. That would give it a range of approximately 4400 nm.

I think the latter might be correct as it would only require at MTOW increase of 2 t, up from 97 t. There must be a limit to what those relatively small wings can handle.

If they can fit the fuel into the standard structure it will, I am sure, take less additional weight and use space more effectively than utilising ACT which are quite weighty empty.

could it be the proposed CRFP wing box?Certainly would not rule it out.Obviously a key structural part so would need to be tested to the 'n'th.
Clearly would be lighter and would be highly surprising if they did not design it to carry additional fuel.
I agree it can't be more than 4,400nm range.Not just space -weight.There is only so far you can take a single bogey MLG.Not just structurally but also they must be getting very close to max pavement loading and a key advantage of these type of aircaft is their airport flexibility.
In any case for TATL you don't need more than 4,400nm and you get into pilot rotation issues on flights any longer than that anyway.
If they really can produce an XLR in 2 years I really can't see Boeing going ahead but we will see.
Thought the Seattle times article was very telling particularly considering where it came from.UH is not a stupid man.His orders are real money so very telling indeed.Yup the Max8 is fine ( brilliant even) in that size - but above? Nope it's the A321NEO (LR) and that's what his order book tells us.Although I think the MAX10 has decent future on shorter regional routes.

JoeCanuck wrote:

This seems like a smart incremental step...picking the low hanging fruit first. With Boeing pushing the launch, (and the final design), of the 797 further out, there really isn't any pressing need for Airbus to radially modify the 321. I have no doubt that stretches and new wings have their own office in Airbus HQ, but why not, when it all this type of R&D costs is salaries, computers and office space?

They can get 95% of the design work done without touching anything more than a keyboard.

I agree. Converting the huge A320 family backlog into cash as effectively as possible has to be the primary mission. Extending that backlog by picking this kind of low hanging fruit is ideal because it won't churn the backlog like a stretch or a new wing probably would. Otherwise you keep your powder dry and only bring the +/++ to the foreground if/when the backlog is stagnant and the product needs a boost.

We have rumors in a few threads ( Brexit, RR UltraFan ) that Airbus's next big project is an all-new twin-aisle design. It'll be interesting to see if more of that kind of rumor surfaces.

reidar76 wrote:

The A321neo, without any aux tanks, can carry approximately 19.2 t fuel. Each aux tank adds approximately 2.43 t of fuel. With three aux tanks this amounts to 7.3 t and a maximum of 26.6 t of fuel loaded.

What I don't understand is the reference to 4 t of additional fuel in the A321 XLR and 400 nm extra range. The A321 doesn't need 4 t to fly 400 nm further. This just doesn't add up.

Either the reference to 400 nm additional range in incorrect, or it might be that the A321 XLR is replacing one aux tank with additional fuel in an expanded center tank? With the former the A321 XLR would have a total of 30.6 t of fuel, which should give it a range of something like 4700 nm, or if the latter is correct the A321 XLR would carry a maximum of 28.2 t of fuel. That would give it a range of approximately 4400 nm.

I think the latter might be correct as it would only require at MTOW increase of 2 t, up from 97 t. There must be a limit to what those relatively small wings can handle.

Can anyone help with A320 layout? The idea of an expanded centre tank doesn't make sense. The centre tank is surely just the wing box. And the wing box is a critical structural element with fixed shape and dimensions. (Unless someone can tell me there is a void between the wingbox and the lower skin that can be utilised...?) And as far as I can see the undercarriage stowage comes immediately behind the wing box. So from the few images available online it's not obvious that the centre tank can be expanded in any direction. Are we talking instead about replacing some of the removable ACTs with an integrated tank inside the hold?

tealnz wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

The A321neo, without any aux tanks, can carry approximately 19.2 t fuel. Each aux tank adds approximately 2.43 t of fuel. With three aux tanks this amounts to 7.3 t and a maximum of 26.6 t of fuel loaded.

What I don't understand is the reference to 4 t of additional fuel in the A321 XLR and 400 nm extra range. The A321 doesn't need 4 t to fly 400 nm further. This just doesn't add up.

Either the reference to 400 nm additional range in incorrect, or it might be that the A321 XLR is replacing one aux tank with additional fuel in an expanded center tank? With the former the A321 XLR would have a total of 30.6 t of fuel, which should give it a range of something like 4700 nm, or if the latter is correct the A321 XLR would carry a maximum of 28.2 t of fuel. That would give it a range of approximately 4400 nm.

I think the latter might be correct as it would only require at MTOW increase of 2 t, up from 97 t. There must be a limit to what those relatively small wings can handle.

Can anyone help with A320 layout? The idea of an expanded centre tank doesn't make sense. The centre tank is surely just the wing box. And the wing box is a critical structural element with fixed shape and dimensions. (Unless someone can tell me there is a void between the wingbox and the lower skin that can be utilised...?) And as far as I can see the undercarriage stowage comes immediately behind the wing box. So from the few images available online it's not obvious that the centre tank can be expanded in any direction. Are we talking instead about replacing some of the removable ACTs with an integrated tank inside the hold?

I might be wrong but I don't think that they 320 family currently uses the wingbox as a fuel tank.

The centre tank sits between the two wing tanks and holds 8250 litres. Surely this is the wing box?

tealnz wrote:

The centre tank sits between the two wing tanks and holds 8250 litres. Surely this is the wing box?

That makes sense. I wasn't sure the 320 had a center tank at all.

Jens Flottau/Guy Norris have more detail in Aviation Week:

The range increase can be achieved by enlarging the center fuel tank, according to Schulz. It is integrated with the fuselage structure to save weight. About 200-300 nm of the range increase has been secured already, but Airbus still needs to close a gap of roughly 200 nm to reach its target.

The European airframer has been studying several ways to upgrade the aircraft—from relatively simple modifications such as the ones currently favored that would be ready sooner to more fundamental changes that involve a fuselage plug for greater capacity and a new composite wing, which are less likely now, given the renewed push for speed.

It's still not clear to me what's involved in "enlarging the center fuel tank". You'd think it would already be filling all the available fuselage volume. Anyone got a layout diagram for the centre section/wing box/tank?

tealnz wrote:

Jens Flottau/Guy Norris have more detail in Aviation Week:

The range increase can be achieved by enlarging the center fuel tank, according to Schulz. It is integrated with the fuselage structure to save weight. About 200-300 nm of the range increase has been secured already, but Airbus still needs to close a gap of roughly 200 nm to reach its target.

The European airframer has been studying several ways to upgrade the aircraft—from relatively simple modifications such as the ones currently favored that would be ready sooner to more fundamental changes that involve a fuselage plug for greater capacity and a new composite wing, which are less likely now, given the renewed push for speed.

It's still not clear to me what's involved in "enlarging the center fuel tank". You'd think it would already be filling all the available fuselage volume. Anyone got a layout diagram for the centre section/wing box/tank?

Interesting story in Aviation Week. May I also add this quote:

The A321XLR is planned to be capable of flying 4,500 nm or more.

It doesn't sound like any aux tanks are removed or replaced. The A321 XLR has an expanded center fuel tank, by using previously unused space? They have "found" enough room to add 200 to 300 nm, and is working to close a gap of roughly 200 nm to reach their target. The target is a range of more than 4500 nm for the A321. This should be about 10 hours scheduled flight time.

The article is free, but requires registration:
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... definition

Revelation wrote:

... I see current A321 more as a 797 market spoiler rather than true competitor.

A market spoiler most definitely is a competitor. see 748.

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

... I see current A321 more as a 797 market spoiler rather than true competitor.

A market spoiler most definitely is a competitor. see 748.

I see it differently.

A competitor is something with a lot more overlap of capabilities, a spoiler is an alternate that can only be used with noticeable compromises.

If you need an A380's payload / range you can't substitute a 748.

I think it'll be the same for NMA vs A321, especially considering that I wrote "current A321".

tealnz wrote:

Jens Flottau/Guy Norris have more detail in Aviation Week:

The range increase can be achieved by enlarging the center fuel tank, according to Schulz. It is integrated with the fuselage structure to save weight. About 200-300 nm of the range increase has been secured already, but Airbus still needs to close a gap of roughly 200 nm to reach its target.

The European airframer has been studying several ways to upgrade the aircraft—from relatively simple modifications such as the ones currently favored that would be ready sooner to more fundamental changes that involve a fuselage plug for greater capacity and a new composite wing, which are less likely now, given the renewed push for speed.

It's still not clear to me what's involved in "enlarging the center fuel tank". You'd think it would already be filling all the available fuselage volume. Anyone got a layout diagram for the centre section/wing box/tank?

There might be some space left between the center fuel tank and ACT1 position.
I don't have good drawings, something else might be there.





If Boeing waits a bit longer with an NMA decision, that opens up time for Airbus to study / prepare more serious wing / wingbox modifications / extensions. E.g. a more radical wingtip mechanism, extension.

keesje wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Jens Flottau/Guy Norris have more detail in Aviation Week:

The range increase can be achieved by enlarging the center fuel tank, according to Schulz. It is integrated with the fuselage structure to save weight. About 200-300 nm of the range increase has been secured already, but Airbus still needs to close a gap of roughly 200 nm to reach its target.

The European airframer has been studying several ways to upgrade the aircraft—from relatively simple modifications such as the ones currently favored that would be ready sooner to more fundamental changes that involve a fuselage plug for greater capacity and a new composite wing, which are less likely now, given the renewed push for speed.

It's still not clear to me what's involved in "enlarging the center fuel tank". You'd think it would already be filling all the available fuselage volume. Anyone got a layout diagram for the centre section/wing box/tank?

There might be some space left between the center fuel tank and ACT1 position.
I don't have good drawings, something else might be there.





If Boeing waits a bit longer with an NMA decision, that opens up time for Airbus to study / prepare more serious wing / wingbox modifications / extensions. E.g. a more radical wingtip mechanism, extension.

That space looks like it is around where the landing gear stow.

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Jens Flottau/Guy Norris have more detail in Aviation Week:


It's still not clear to me what's involved in "enlarging the center fuel tank". You'd think it would already be filling all the available fuselage volume. Anyone got a layout diagram for the centre section/wing box/tank?

There might be some space left between the center fuel tank and ACT1 position.
I don't have good drawings, something else might be there.





If Boeing waits a bit longer with an NMA decision, that opens up time for Airbus to study / prepare more serious wing / wingbox modifications / extensions. E.g. a more radical wingtip mechanism, extension.

That space looks like it is around where the landing gear stow.

Yes, I wonder if space might be left. A relocation of systems would be required and some space to handle heat from the brakes must be there too. Maybe not enough for 500nm of fuel..



Maybe a fusealge plug, apart from cabin capacity, might change the balance below deck for the better too.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Revelation wrote:

In https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... r-everett/ we read:

Hazy said the A321XLR will dispense with the separate auxiliary fuel tanks and instead put the extra fuel into an expanded center wing tank that’s an integral part of the airframe. Airbus will make other tweaks and increase the maximum take-off weight, allowing it to carry an extra four tons of fuel and increasing the range to about 4,400 nautical miles, Hazy said.

Airbus has in the past talked about more drastic upgrades, such as stretching the fuselage by a couple of seat rows or even putting on a new wing. Hazy said those options would be much more costly — a new wing would add $2 billion —and are “not top of the list.”

He said the less costly XLR concept would give the A321 a range above that of Boeing’s now out-of-production 757, a plane many airlines are seeking to replace.

That would make the XLR “a true transatlantic airplane,” Hazy said, and “a much more formidable competitor to the 797.”

So we see an A321XLR that will move the extra fuel storage out of aux tanks and into an expanded center wing box

And we see A321+ (stretch) and A321++ (new CFRP wing) are, ummm, what's the word... someone help me...

Well if nothing else, A321+/++ are "not top of the list" and so A321XLR is "top of the list", at least according to SUH's insider gossip.

This seems like a smart incremental step...picking the low hanging fruit first. With Boeing pushing the launch, (and the final design), of the 797 further out, there really isn't any pressing need for Airbus to radially modify the 321. I have no doubt that stretches and new wings have their own office in Airbus HQ, but why not, when it all this type of R&D costs is salaries, computers and office space?

They can get 95% of the design work done without touching anything more than a keyboard.

I guess any improvement to the A321 pushes the specs of the 797 further up, making it less competitive on shorter missions.

Best regards
Thomas

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

There might be some space left between the center fuel tank and ACT1 position.
I don't have good drawings, something else might be there.





If Boeing waits a bit longer with an NMA decision, that opens up time for Airbus to study / prepare more serious wing / wingbox modifications / extensions. E.g. a more radical wingtip mechanism, extension.

That space looks like it is around where the landing gear stow.

Yes, I wonder if space might be left. A relocation of systems would be required and some space to handle heat from the brakes must be there too. Maybe not enough for 500nm of fuel..



Maybe a fusealge plug, apart from cabin capacity, might change the balance below deck for the better too.

A fuselage plug also adds weight though. I haven’t fully been following the XLR. Is Airbus talking about MTOW improvements? How much more weight can the current gear and wing handle? No use in adding all this stuff if it just results in a plane that can’t fly a full pax load the ~4500nm in even a legacy international layout.

Taxi645 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Could this be the CFRP wingbox?

That would be ideal from a technical POV looking at future option like adding a composite wing and/or fuselage length adjustments.


Anyway CFRP or not, would be interesting to know what the weight delta of this proposed design would be compared to the three ACT's plus plumbing.

It might also mean that an "A322" length with a new CFRP wing with a furter fuel volume addition would still have very decent range.

But wouldn't a whole new wing box require testing to destruction? If Airbus wasn't willing to do that for the A320 NEO spreading the cost over the entire A320 NEO program, why would they do that now? The XLR is a niche model.

Why did they develop a prototype?

Polot wrote:

That space looks like it is around where the landing gear stow.

We know the A320 family has enough space there for two 4-wheel bogies. Maybe this space can be used for an expanded center tank?

Polot wrote:

Is Airbus talking about MTOW improvements?

According to Seattle Times:

Airbus will make other tweaks and increase the maximum take-off weight, allowing it to carry an extra four tons of fuel and increasing the range

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... r-everett/

reidar76 wrote:

Polot wrote:

That space looks like it is around where the landing gear stow.

We know the A320 family has enough space there for two 4-wheel bogies. Maybe this space can be used for an expanded center tank?

Polot wrote:

Is Airbus talking about MTOW improvements?

According to Seattle Times:

Airbus will make other tweaks and increase the maximum take-off weight, allowing it to carry an extra four tons of fuel and increasing the range

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... r-everett/

That 4 bogey gear is one hurdle cleared to significant MTOW increases.

I wonder what gains Airbus might be able to achieve, if any, by doing a 330neo style wingtip with the 321. They might end up with too much span for the standard narrow aisle gate box, but since we're essentially talking about a relatively niche long range product, it probably wouldn't be parking at the standard domestic gates anyway.

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

... I see current A321 more as a 797 market spoiler rather than true competitor.

A market spoiler most definitely is a competitor. see 748.

I see it differently.

A competitor is something with a lot more overlap of capabilities, a spoiler is an alternate that can only be used with noticeable compromises.

If you need an A380's payload / range you can't substitute a 748.

I think it'll be the same for NMA vs A321, especially considering that I wrote "current A321".

I see it differently.
In this case an A321XLR is specifically being aimed at narrowing the order base potential upon which a MOM business case would be based.
It is absolutely competing for at least a subset of those orders.
It IS a competitor, insofar as it provides an alternative in a meaningful number of cases, even if not in all cases.

The "noticeable compromises" are meaningless except where they impact the "spoilers" ability to compete for those orders.
Every aircraft has "noticeable compromises". MOM will have them.

The thing that appeals to me about this approach from Airbus is the thing that appealed to me about the A320NEO in the first place - the simplicity and the low risk.
Expanding the centre wing tank by c. 2 tons capacity takes away the need for 1 x ACT, which in itself a) saves 600kg, and b) almost certainly has less impact on cargo space.
I would not expect the centre wing tank increase to consume all of that 600kg - only a fraction of it if any.
For me this would be a development of benefit not just for the XLR but across the A321 range for certain, and quite possibly across the whole of the A320 range.
It could endue the entire A320 family with an internal tank volume close to that of the 737NG/MAX which is something the whole family has been in dire need of for some time.

The other thing they might consider for the XLR is a wingtip extension similar to that on the A330NEO.
It has the potential to release another c. 5% reduction in drag.
It could be a very cheap low impact development. reliant on little more than a bit of wing twist.
It It would put the XLR into cat D, but there's no question that is where MOM will be.
And it is where 757's and 767's are today.

But above all, the biggest thing going for the XLR is the same thing the LR has - it will still just be another A32X series plane in countless thousands of A32X series planes, with all the massive benefits of commonality and low cost manufacture that brings, given the huge production rates.

That characteristic could provide the XLR with what Michael Porter would call a "sustainable" competitive advantage - to offset the "sustainable" advantages that MOM would have from being a new platform.There is no way on earth IMO that Boeing are going to be able to get the manufacturing cost of a bespoke MOM platform remotely close to that of "just another A32X"

More fuel capacity, reduction of an ACT, less drag, a "tweak" to MTOW, maybe a further 1% engine PIP who knows?
The potential to be in service a minimum of 4-5 years before MOM?
And very low cost
And low risk

Interesting approach.

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

A market spoiler most definitely is a competitor.

A competitor is something with a lot more overlap of capabilities, a spoiler is an alternate that can only be used with noticeable compromises.

In this case an A321XLR is specifically being aimed at narrowing the order base potential upon which a MOM business case would be based. It is absolutely competing for at least a subset of those orders.

Thanks for an excellent post, astuteman.

The different views on this matter is all connected to how large we think the (possible) NMA should be, and what its capabilities are. Boeing has over the last year repeatedly indicated that the NMA will be a family of two aircraft, with 220 to 270 seats, with 4500 nm to 5000 nm range, and with very little room for additional cargo. The number of seats is presumed to be in a two-class configuration?

By comparison the 787-8 can have 292 seats in an LCC configuration, including a small premium economy class (Norwegian). In an high premium configuration the 787-8 can have 169 seats (three class, ANA). If 270 seats is actually in a Boeing standard two-class configuration, then the largest NMA will be larger than the 787-8 (242 seats, two-class, Boeing standard). It will then be very important for Boeing to keep the range and cargo capabilities of the NMA low, in order not to cannibalize the 787-8 and -9. Looking at the sketches of the NMA that Boeing as published, the door configuration is front/rear doors and overwing exits. This makes me wonder if 270 seats actually is standard one-class configuration? Keep in mind the maximum length allowed between emergency exits, and a likely seven abreast design. I would also think that the smallest variant of the NMA will have about 5000 nm range, while the largest variant would have about 4500 nm range. Such a simple stretch would allow the two variants to share a larger amount of parts, thus reducing production costs.

By comparison the A321XLR will seat almost 200 passengers two-class, and about 220 passengers in a long haul one-class configuration. The range will be more than 4500 nm according to the latest reports. There will be no room for additional cargo.

So the largest NMA variant will be larger than the A321XLR (about 50 seats?), and the smallest variant will have about an hour more range? Both will have very limited additional cargo capabilities.

Will be A321XLR and the NMA be direct competitors? It all depends on how do you define the Middle Of the Market (MOM). I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here, but I note that what is actually missing in both OEM's product catalogs is a relatively small aircraft capable of flying medium to long haul. Such an aircraft would address both long-and-thin routes (connecting airports that hasn't enough direct traffic to fill a large widebody), and routes that have the volume, but require high frequency (for business travelers). I think the A321XLR will compete in these parts of the MOM.

The A321XLR will not address the short to medium haul, extra high capacity market, the so called AsiaBus market. In this part of the MOM the A333 with 270 to more than 400 seats onboard rule today. The AsiaBus market also values significant cargo capabilities, so I'm not sure how well the NMA will compete in this market neither. It might also make economically more sense to "abuse" a large, long haul widebody instead of developing a brand new aircraft family for this part of the MOM. I think Boeing is well positioned in the part of the MOM with the 787-10.

The NMA is high risk for Boeing, while the A321XLR is low risk for Airbus. I think the NMA will end up as revived and significantly improved 787-3, a slightly smaller 787 optimized for medium haul. Then Boeing will proceed with the launch of a new clean sheet single aisle, the 737 replacement.

Interesting times ahead.

What engine thrust are they planning. More MTOW but low thrust seems to be an issue/risk no?
Can 33k lift the new higher MTOW from a normal Ry?

mercure1 wrote:

What engine thrust are they planning. More MTOW but low thrust seems to be an issue/risk no?
Can 33k lift the new higher MTOW from a normal Ry?

Engines are already certified to 35k lb so I don't think that should be an issue.
I can't imagine any weight increase being more than 1 or 2 tonnes


Rgds

In the article where Udar-Hazy is being quoted it appears that around 4T of extra fuel capacity is being sought - presumably this is over what is carried in the ACTs, which the article says are being dispensed with. Not using these saves around 1.8T in empty weight, so an increase in MTOW of ca 2T should suffice, but will it be a tall order to find space in the wing box to take the fuel previously carried in the wing box as well as the extra 4T?

DartHerald wrote:

In the article where Udar-Hazy is being quoted it appears that around 4T of extra fuel capacity is being sought - presumably this is over what is carried in the ACTs, which the article says are being dispensed with. Not using these saves around 1.8T in empty weight, so an increase in MTOW of ca 2T should suffice, but will it be a tall order to find space in the wing box to take the fuel previously carried in the wing box as well as the extra 4T?

To be honest I read it more as Airbus is looking to ditch the removable ACTs and put a large and fixed (integral) fuel tank in their place instead. That will free up weight versus multiple ACTs and give more fuel volume as they can size the tank for the entire space, versus in smaller volumes that have to be able to get through the cargo door as they have to do with ACTs. The downside for airlines, of course, is the tank is not removable so if you decide you no longer want to fly long range the XLR will be ill suited for short hops unlike the LR where you can just remove a tank or two and be basically a normal A321. That will mean the XLR will be more appealing to established intercontinental carriers and not those wishing to dip their toes in the water.

Thanks as always for a very well reasoned post. You've mentioned A32x's relatively smaller wing fuel capacity in the past. It'll be interesting to see where they find room for c. 2t (your working figure) to 4t (mentioned in Seattle Times report above) more fuel. And indeed it is interesting to consider the impact of more center fuel capacity on the other family members. We may have round-the-world flights in A319XLR by the time they are doing tinkering with things!

I will clarify one point:

astuteman wrote:

Every aircraft has "noticeable compromises". MOM will have them.

True, but to be clear, I was addressing the airline's view of their needs and the kinds of compromises they'd make if the airframe can't meet the payload/range targets they need, rather than the compromises of the aircraft themselves. In particular I was thinking of viewtopic.php?t=1388405 and:

“No decision has been taken. They (A321LR) can cross the Atlantic but they don’t manage to go from Germany all the way to the east coast,” Carsten Spohr told journalists on the sidelines of an airlines event in Brussels.

To me this reads as saying for LH and its TATL missons the current A321LR is a non-starter, and I think there are many scenarios where due to range or pax count or turn around time the A321LR is not a competitor to the NMA as both are currently being described. And I don't see 747-8i as an A380 competitor either. There are a significant number of missions the A380 can do that 747-8i simply cannot.

reidar76 wrote:

The A321neo, without any aux tanks, can carry approximately 19.2 t fuel. Each aux tank adds approximately 2.43 t of fuel. With three aux tanks this amounts to 7.3 t and a maximum of 26.6 t of fuel loaded.

What I don't understand is the reference to 4 t of additional fuel in the A321 XLR and 400 nm extra range. The A321 doesn't need 4 t to fly 400 nm further. This just doesn't add up.

Either the reference to 400 nm additional range in incorrect, or it might be that the A321 XLR is replacing one aux tank with additional fuel in an expanded center tank? With the former the A321 XLR would have a total of 30.6 t of fuel, which should give it a range of something like 4700 nm, or if the latter is correct the A321 XLR would carry a maximum of 28.2 t of fuel. That would give it a range of approximately 4400 nm.

I think the latter might be correct as it would only require at MTOW increase of 2 t, up from 97 t. There must be a limit to what those relatively small wings can handle.

It is hard making it all add up.

We have Shulz saying:

tealnz wrote:

About 200-300 nm of the range increase has been secured already, but Airbus still needs to close a gap of roughly 200 nm to reach its target.

And ST/SUH saying 4T more fuel with some adjustment to MTOW as well, and we have fuel capacities in liters, and some presumed value of liters consumed per nm of range.

All this before my morning coffee has kicked in, sigh.

astuteman wrote:

For me this would be a development of benefit not just for the XLR but across the A321 range for certain, and quite possibly across the whole of the A320 range.
It could endue the entire A320 family with an internal tank volume close to that of the 737NG/MAX which is something the whole family has been in dire need of for some time.

This has to be the key advantage of the XLR concept.

Polot wrote:

To be honest I read it more as Airbus is looking to ditch the removable ACTs and put a large and fixed (integral) fuel tank in their place instead. That will free up weight versus multiple ACTs and give more fuel volume as they can size the tank for the entire space, versus in smaller volumes that have to be able to get through the cargo door as they have to do with ACTs. The downside for airlines, of course, is the tank is not removable so if you decide you no longer want to fly long range the XLR will be ill suited for short hops unlike the LR where you can just remove a tank or two and be basically a normal A321. That will mean the XLR will be more appealing to established intercontinental carriers and not those wishing to dip their toes in the water.

Yes. Unless someone can point to several m3 of currently unused space in/around the wing box this sounds more plausible than an expansion of the current centre tank.

tealnz wrote:

..... an expansion of the current centre tank.

replacing a set of 3 ACTs with a single contiguous tank that uses the full x-section available should save quite a bit of weight and leverage significant volume efficiencies.
sole downside: unremovable.

WIederling wrote:

tealnz wrote:

..... an expansion of the current centre tank.

replacing a set of 3 ACTs with a single contiguous tank that uses the full x-section available should save quite a bit of weight and leverage significant volume efficiencies.
sole downside: unremovable.

It is anyway standard for the A321-200 to be delivered with one ATC installed. The additional weight for the increased tankage should be less than the weight of one ATC. I imagine the A321neo with increased tankage, but than no ATC, becoming the standard version.

WIederling wrote:

tealnz wrote:

..... an expansion of the current centre tank.

replacing a set of 3 ACTs with a single contiguous tank that uses the full x-section available should save quite a bit of weight and leverage significant volume efficiencies.
sole downside: unremovable.

Also this might not be viewed as an enhancement for A320/A319 because they might prefer to keep the cargo space on some missions, whereas finding underutilized space in the center wingbox area is almost certainly a win for all family members.

No one from Airbus has mentioned using the carbon fiber wingbox for A321XLR yet, but if using it provided more fuel volume and less structural weight at the same time this would of course be fabulous. The down side of that is the cost of certifying that cfrp wingbox, and introducing it into production, and the (presumed) higher materials costs.

Regarding Spohr´s comment on the A321LR, there are many good reason for him to say exactly what he said, the performance of the plane is not the most decisive by far.

Revelation wrote:

No one from Airbus has mentioned using the carbon fiber wingbox for A321XLR yet, but if using it provided more fuel volume and less structural weight at the same time this would of course be fabulous. The down side of that is the cost of certifying that cfrp wingbox, and introducing it into production, and the (presumed) higher materials costs.

replace three ACT positions with one contiguous tank inserted into the available space used up by 2ACT and their surroundings.
A net gain, right?
No need to meddle with the center wingbox tankage.

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

No one from Airbus has mentioned using the carbon fiber wingbox for A321XLR yet, but if using it provided more fuel volume and less structural weight at the same time this would of course be fabulous. The down side of that is the cost of certifying that cfrp wingbox, and introducing it into production, and the (presumed) higher materials costs.

replace three ACT positions with one contiguous tank inserted into the available space used up by 2ACT and their surroundings.
A net gain, right?
No need to meddle with the center wingbox tankage.

This is what I was thinking, as well. Make it non removable so the XLR becomes the one version you can't revert to a regular A321neo (well, apart from on paper).

WIederling wrote:

sole downside: unremovable.

Which would not be a big issue since the planes it will replace or could compete with can't "remove" their range capability either.

For the users for which it is an issue there is the LR.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Could this be the CFRP wingbox?

That would be ideal from a technical POV looking at future option like adding a composite wing and/or fuselage length adjustments.


Anyway CFRP or not, would be interesting to know what the weight delta of this proposed design would be compared to the three ACT's plus plumbing.

It might also mean that an "A322" length with a new CFRP wing with a furter fuel volume addition would still have very decent range.

But wouldn't a whole new wing box require testing to destruction? If Airbus wasn't willing to do that for the A320 NEO spreading the cost over the entire A320 NEO program, why would they do that now? The XLR is a niche model.

It's indeed most likely not CFRP. That would probably make more sense to later be combined with the composite wing. Focus now is low hanging fruit that can add competitiveness/revenue short term.

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

No one from Airbus has mentioned using the carbon fiber wingbox for A321XLR yet, but if using it provided more fuel volume and less structural weight at the same time this would of course be fabulous. The down side of that is the cost of certifying that cfrp wingbox, and introducing it into production, and the (presumed) higher materials costs.

replace three ACT positions with one contiguous tank inserted into the available space used up by 2ACT and their surroundings.
A net gain, right?
No need to meddle with the center wingbox tankage.

Depends on the mission.

Net gain for A321XLR and related missions, not so much on other missions.

Finding underutilized space in the center wing box is great for all the family members, as pointed out by Astuteman.

mercure1 wrote:

What engine thrust are they planning. More MTOW but low thrust seems to be an issue/risk no?
Can 33k lift the new higher MTOW from a normal Ry?

If they replace 3 ACT with a single internal tank MTOW will not change.
( weight save on the ACT infrastructure will go into more fuel. )

WIederling wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

What engine thrust are they planning. More MTOW but low thrust seems to be an issue/risk no?
Can 33k lift the new higher MTOW from a normal Ry?

If they replace 3 ACT with a single internal tank MTOW will not change.
( weight save on the ACT infrastructure will go into more fuel. )

That depends on how much weight is saved versus fuel capacity added.

Going back to jetblue jumping in as a primary customer, seems like this article elaborates how well this will fit with JetBlue’s network well
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/07/ ... -jetb.aspx

Revelation wrote:

Finding underutilized space in the center wing box is great for all the family members, as pointed out by Astuteman.

Problem is no-one has been able to show us where there might be under-utilised space in the wing box that could be used for additional tankage. Seems a bit implausible given the nature of the structures there.

tealnz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Finding underutilized space in the center wing box is great for all the family members, as pointed out by Astuteman.

Problem is no-one has been able to show us where there might be under-utilised space in the wing box that could be used for additional tankage. Seems a bit implausible given the nature of the structures there.

Yes, that is a problem, but you yourself provided the AvWeek quote "The range increase can be achieved by enlarging the center fuel tank, according to Schulz" and Schulz is a pretty good source given that he's Airbus's Chief Customer Officer, so it seems we have at least two problems.

Aaaahhh. Yeah. Forgot that.
So we’ve still got the question: how do you extend the centre tank? (Assuming the centre tank is basically the wing box, a structure that you don’t tinker with...)

Polot wrote:

WIederling wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

What engine thrust are they planning. More MTOW but low thrust seems to be an issue/risk no?
Can 33k lift the new higher MTOW from a normal Ry?

If they replace 3 ACT with a single internal tank MTOW will not change.
( weight save on the ACT infrastructure will go into more fuel. )

That depends on how much weight is saved versus fuel capacity added.

my words.

integral versus addin option makes the difference.

astuteman wrote:

The other thing they might consider for the XLR is a wingtip extension similar to that on the A330NEO.
It has the potential to release another c. 5% reduction in drag.
It could be a very cheap low impact development. reliant on little more than a bit of wing twist.
It It would put the XLR into cat D, but there's no question that is where MOM will be.
And it is where 757's and 767's are today.

Rgds

I agree with everything else in your post, but I have my doubts about the A321 wing being extended in similar fashion to the A330, soly because the wings have/had different short comings. The A321 wing lacks lift where as the old A330 wing needed more aspect ratio for efficiency gain. Making the A321 wing longer and modifying the wingtips, what was done to the A330 wing, will not result in the same gains. Yes drag will be reduced but the core problem of having too little lift would still persist. I would guess around 2% could be gained with the A330 treatment, compared to 4% on the A330. A wing root extension would IMO be of more benefit, but that has the problems with landing gear placement so wouldn't be nearly as cheap to do.

I wager they modyfy the winglets, streghthen the landing gear (slightly) and move to a double bogey arrangement for say 4-6t MTOW increase with the centre wing tank modification.
The move to double bogey arrangement would reduce takeoff and landing distances, as I understand in most cases takeoff distances are limited by the distance needed to abort takeoff from V1 rather than the actual performance of the plane itself.

pros: same category gates
cheap
fast to market
better takeoff and landing/breaking performance

cons: landing gear will be different to rest of the A32X fleet

350helmi