Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
 
StTim
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:15 am

YIMBY wrote:
jagraham wrote:

Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. The A350 / A330NEO sharklet is Airbus' response and produces comparable (and perhaps a little better) results.


I do not believe that a trivial wing form can be patented, at least internationally. The invention threshold for a patent is quite high: you cannot patent something that any average engineer could invent when presented the problem (unless discovering the problem is an invention as itself). Optimizing the wingtip seems a routine work for an average engineer in the field.

The specific form for the specific wing in a specific plane of course has other IPR's. That is, you cannot just copy it, but if you end up with a similar form by your own work, go ahead.

Oh you would be surprised what the US Patent Office has allowed to be patented. It is an ongoing issue is certain industries.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:45 am

jagraham wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
Any chance we'll see the A321XLR with raked wingtips, as I keep reading that raked wingtips offer slightly more efficiency on longer flights than winglets/sharklets?


Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. The A350 / A330NEO sharklet is Airbus' response and produces comparable (and perhaps a little better) results.


If there was ever a patent on raked wingtips, it must have surely run out by now. 747-400 1989 is 29 years ago.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3710
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:54 am

mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
Any chance we'll see the A321XLR with raked wingtips, as I keep reading that raked wingtips offer slightly more efficiency on longer flights than winglets/sharklets?


Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. The A350 / A330NEO sharklet is Airbus' response and produces comparable (and perhaps a little better) results.


If there was ever a patent on raked wingtips, it must have surely run out by now. 747-400 1989 is 29 years ago.


First flight of the 764ER was in October 1999, so a standard 20 year patent won't last beyond next year. Unless Boeing didn't patent it till after first flight then it's null and void...

Fred
Image
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:05 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:

Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. The A350 / A330NEO sharklet is Airbus' response and produces comparable (and perhaps a little better) results.


If there was ever a patent on raked wingtips, it must have surely run out by now. 747-400 1989 is 29 years ago.


First flight of the 764ER was in October 1999, so a standard 20 year patent won't last beyond next year. Unless Boeing didn't patent it till after first flight then it's null and void...

Fred


You can not patent something that has been out there for somebody to see. So if not patented before the first flight, than no patent. You have to patent it before you show the first picture of the bird to someone outside the company.

I was of course wrong with the 747-400, no raked wingtips on that one.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9410
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:21 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
You can not patent something that has been out there for somebody to see. So if not patented before the first flight, than no patent. You have to patent it before you show the first picture of the bird to someone outside the company.
.


There are differences between patent domains ( EU, US , ... )
that seem to allow strategic preemption of foreign applicants.
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3710
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:25 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

If there was ever a patent on raked wingtips, it must have surely run out by now. 747-400 1989 is 29 years ago.


First flight of the 764ER was in October 1999, so a standard 20 year patent won't last beyond next year. Unless Boeing didn't patent it till after first flight then it's null and void...

Fred


You can not patent something that has been out there for somebody to see. So if not patented before the first flight, than no patent. You have to patent it before you show the first picture of the bird to someone outside the company.
That's what I mean, the patent wouldn't actually be applicable/defend-able if it was granted (which it wouldn't be). It would have had to be patented prior to roll out (couldn't find a date for that) and before it was put into the public domain. Essentially if there was a patent it has run out already.

Fred
Image
 
jagraham
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:47 am

StTim wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
jagraham wrote:

Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. The A350 / A330NEO sharklet is Airbus' response and produces comparable (and perhaps a little better) results.


I do not believe that a trivial wing form can be patented, at least internationally. The invention threshold for a patent is quite high: you cannot patent something that any average engineer could invent when presented the problem (unless discovering the problem is an invention as itself). Optimizing the wingtip seems a routine work for an average engineer in the field.

The specific form for the specific wing in haa specific plane of course has other IPR's. That is, you cannot just copy it, but if you end up with a similar form by your own work, go ahead.

Oh you would be surprised what the US Patent Office has allowed to be patented. It is an ongoing issue is certain industries.


Surprise is right! Like Apple patenting a handheld device with a rectangular screen and a case with rounded corners? That one took almost a decade to die despite the fact that HTC had a phone fitting that description which was older than any iPod touch (the predecessor to the iPhone).
 
jagraham
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:50 am

mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
Any chance we'll see the A321XLR with raked wingtips, as I keep reading that raked wingtips offer slightly more efficiency on longer flights than winglets/sharklets?


Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. The A350 / A330NEO sharklet is Airbus' response and produces comparable (and perhaps a little better) results.


If there was ever a patent on raked wingtips, it must have surely run out by now. 747-400 1989 is 29 years ago.



The correct airplane is the 77W. The patent is 6089502. Filed in 2000, expires in 2020. A couple of years to go
 
jagraham
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:10 am

mjoelnir wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

If there was ever a patent on raked wingtips, it must have surely run out by now. 747-400 1989 is 29 years ago.


First flight of the 764ER was in October 1999, so a standard 20 year patent won't last beyond next year. Unless Boeing didn't patent it till after first flight then it's null and void...

Fred


You can not patent something that has been out there for somebody to see. So if not patented before the first flight, than no patent. You have to patent it before you show the first picture of the bird to someone outside the company.

I was of course wrong with the 747-400, no raked wingtips on that one.


One could argue that the 747 had raked wingtips, just at an angle. However, the actual raked wingtips are flat. And come to a point. I believe the point is significant.

Boeing had to prove that the flat, triangular raked wingtips were superior to the art. There also is an issue with the sharp bend on 747 / A330 / etc. winglets, but Aviation Partners covered that in 1993. Boeing's raked wingtip being flat avoided that, and avoided paying Aviation Partners.

Boeing said that a 767 with blended wingtips was better than raked wingtips out to about 4 hours, after which raked wingtips won. Hence the 764, which needed all the help it could get, got raked wingtips. The 763 never did, despite the fact that it flies farther.

Airbus, by coming up with a continuously curved (not flat, avoids Boeing patents) (not a specific curved section, avoids Aviation Partners patents) continuously increasing sweep scythe-like wingtip, avoided all the other patents. And probably got a percent or so for equivalent sized wingtips.

With regards to the A320 sharklet, it is a direct copy of the Aviation Partners blended winglet. Airbus tried various things from 2006 to work with, and against, Aviation Partners. After over a decade, the matter was settled in Aviation Partners favor

Airbus has resolved its winglet dispute by making a large payment to Aviation Partners, according to sources who were familiar with the matter but asked not to be named to protect business relationships.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... spute.html

Previously,

Airbus worked with Aviation Partners from 2006 through 2011, in an effort to modernize its A320 family of jets. In 2011, however, Airbus announced that it came up with its own design, which it branded "sharklets," and obtained a patent in Europe. In December 2011, Airbus filed suit in Texas seeking to invalidate Aviation Partners' 1994 winglet patent.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Partners_Inc.

Some more about the joint venture, Airbus patent, and lawsuits

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-367720/

There was a short, but spirited discussion on a.net 5 years ago
viewtopic.php?t=553441

The majority opinion was that it was all about the details. However, it is quite possible to patent a feature (if nobody else did it first), which is why Aviation Partners won.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1533
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:20 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
We can discuss the wing on the A321 quite a while. There is no question, that Airbus could do a better wing for the longer range part of the A321 envelope.

But with a look at the competition, Airbus seems to able to compete. The competition is the 737. The 737 is slightly lighter than the A320 family birds and has a smaller diameter fuselage. The 737NG family seems to have lower fuel burn than the A320ceo family on short distances. The A320 makes headway on longer flights.
With a wider fuselage and about the same engines, the aerodynamic differences can only be the wings. So I post the theory that the older wing on the A320 is aerodynamically more effective than the younger wing on the 737NG. Both wings moved nearly unchanged to the next generation MAX and neo.

Now Airbus seems to be able to stretch this design slightly further to a still higher MTOW and 4,700 nm range.

I think we will see a new wing for the A321 and the A321 only, when it is clear that and when Boeing will launch the 797. Up to than there is no competitive reason to mess with a very successful design.


Your theory ignores that the 737MAX and A320neo use different engines and how weight and drag balance with engine efficiency

Image

The 737 has a number of weight savings that help it
  • Lighter Engines
  • Smaller Cabin Service Doors
  • Unpowered Cargo Doors
  • Shorter Landinging Gear
  • Gear doors are smaller and only cover the strut
  • Narrower Fuselage
  • No overwinter exit slides

Hundreds of pounds add up and helps explain why these airplanes perform differently. When we look at operations, Delta and Alaska prefer the 737-900ER over the A321 on transcons, and we have 4 737MAX operators flying Transatlantic compared to just 1 A321neo operators. My point is both 737MAX and A321neo are great airplanes and it depends on the operating environment and network of each individual airline

I believe your theory of the A320 being aerodynamically more effective is far too simplistic.


Love the chart. Where did you find it? I'd love to read more.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:32 am

flipdewaf wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:

Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. The A350 / A330NEO sharklet is Airbus' response and produces comparable (and perhaps a little better) results.


If there was ever a patent on raked wingtips, it must have surely run out by now. 747-400 1989 is 29 years ago.


First flight of the 764ER was in October 1999, so a standard 20 year patent won't last beyond next year. Unless Boeing didn't patent it till after first flight then it's null and void...

Fred


Continuation-in-part is a fascinating subject. Ask your patent lawyer.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:23 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
We can discuss the wing on the A321 quite a while. There is no question, that Airbus could do a better wing for the longer range part of the A321 envelope.

But with a look at the competition, Airbus seems to able to compete. The competition is the 737. The 737 is slightly lighter than the A320 family birds and has a smaller diameter fuselage. The 737NG family seems to have lower fuel burn than the A320ceo family on short distances. The A320 makes headway on longer flights.
With a wider fuselage and about the same engines, the aerodynamic differences can only be the wings. So I post the theory that the older wing on the A320 is aerodynamically more effective than the younger wing on the 737NG. Both wings moved nearly unchanged to the next generation MAX and neo.

Now Airbus seems to be able to stretch this design slightly further to a still higher MTOW and 4,700 nm range.

I think we will see a new wing for the A321 and the A321 only, when it is clear that and when Boeing will launch the 797. Up to than there is no competitive reason to mess with a very successful design.


Your theory ignores that the 737MAX and A320neo use different engines and how weight and drag balance with engine efficiency

Image

The 737 has a number of weight savings that help it
  • Lighter Engines
  • Smaller Cabin Service Doors
  • Unpowered Cargo Doors
  • Shorter Landinging Gear
  • Gear doors are smaller and only cover the strut
  • Narrower Fuselage
  • No overwinter exit slides

Hundreds of pounds add up and helps explain why these airplanes perform differently. When we look at operations, Delta and Alaska prefer the 737-900ER over the A321 on transcons, and we have 4 737MAX operators flying Transatlantic compared to just 1 A321neo operators. My point is both 737MAX and A321neo are great airplanes and it depends on the operating environment and network of each individual airline

I believe your theory of the A320 being aerodynamically more effective is far too simplistic.


Love the chart. Where did you find it? I'd love to read more.


I'm trying to remember some of what was mentioned from as far back as the early days when the latest generations of engines were being developed.

As I understand it, BPR is essentially, (and feel free to correct me), the mass of air around the core divided by the mass of air through the core over time. With a big fan, you can push more air slowly to get the target bypass air mass. With a smaller fan, to get the same bypass air mass, you would have to move the air at a higher velocity.

BPR isn't only a function of fan size. You can increase BRP by reducing the size of the core and/or increasing the speed of the fan and/or increasing the pitch/efficiency of the fan blades.

On the 350-1000, Airbus wanted to increase the thrust over the -900 but keep the same fan diameter. I believe they bumped up the thrust of the core and to keep the same BPR as the -900, increased the RPM's of the fan.

I'm paraphrasing so I might be missing some nuances here. I believe from a theoretical engine efficiency standpoint, the bigger the fan the better. Things start getting sticky once the engine has to fit on a real aircraft where physical size, weight, drag, noise and such complicates things somewhat. Going back to the chart, it's where optimizing engines to airframes comes into play.
What the...?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14094
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:49 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
We can discuss the wing on the A321 quite a while. There is no question, that Airbus could do a better wing for the longer range part of the A321 envelope.

But with a look at the competition, Airbus seems to able to compete. The competition is the 737. The 737 is slightly lighter than the A320 family birds and has a smaller diameter fuselage. The 737NG family seems to have lower fuel burn than the A320ceo family on short distances. The A320 makes headway on longer flights.
With a wider fuselage and about the same engines, the aerodynamic differences can only be the wings. So I post the theory that the older wing on the A320 is aerodynamically more effective than the younger wing on the 737NG. Both wings moved nearly unchanged to the next generation MAX and neo.

Now Airbus seems to be able to stretch this design slightly further to a still higher MTOW and 4,700 nm range.

I think we will see a new wing for the A321 and the A321 only, when it is clear that and when Boeing will launch the 797. Up to than there is no competitive reason to mess with a very successful design.


Your theory ignores that the 737MAX and A320neo use different engines and how weight and drag balance with engine efficiency

Image

The 737 has a number of weight savings that help it
  • Lighter Engines
  • Smaller Cabin Service Doors
  • Unpowered Cargo Doors
  • Shorter Landinging Gear
  • Gear doors are smaller and only cover the strut
  • Narrower Fuselage
  • No overwinter exit slides

Hundreds of pounds add up and helps explain why these airplanes perform differently. When we look at operations, Delta and Alaska prefer the 737-900ER over the A321 on transcons, and we have 4 737MAX operators flying Transatlantic compared to just 1 A321neo operators. My point is both 737MAX and A321neo are great airplanes and it depends on the operating environment and network of each individual airline

I believe your theory of the A320 being aerodynamically more effective is far too simplistic.


Love the chart. Where did you find it? I'd love to read more.


Interestingly the chart shows 68.5 is the right fan size. In the end it became 69.5 inch, adding drag, weight & fuel burn. I wonder what was first, the maximum fan size or this graph. :scratchchin:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9741
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:53 am

Or they optimized for a slightly longer stage length.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9410
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:02 am

jagraham wrote:
With regards to the A320 sharklet, it is a direct copy of the Aviation Partners blended winglet. Airbus tried various things from 2006 to work with, and against, Aviation Partners. After over a decade, the matter was settled in Aviation Partners favor


Yes. the APB patent was taken down as it described a generic optimization process and there was prior art to boot :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3710
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:31 am

jagraham wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

If there was ever a patent on raked wingtips, it must have surely run out by now. 747-400 1989 is 29 years ago.


First flight of the 764ER was in October 1999, so a standard 20 year patent won't last beyond next year. Unless Boeing didn't patent it till after first flight then it's null and void...

Fred


Continuation-in-part is a fascinating subject. Ask your patent lawyer.


Continuation in part appears to say that you can apply for additional claims on an initial patent which keep the initial patents original filing date due to the fact that they are a build on an already patented part but they still require the additional claims to be "new" and "novel" so it cannot be used as a stalling tactic and the burdens of proof still remain as if it were a new patent.

So the question is if Boeing developed the raked wingtip in 1999 then then filed a CIP in 2018 for a widget for the raked wingtip which helped, would the result be:
a) the raked wingtip and the wingtip with widget both run out of the patent period in 2019
b) the raked wingtip be out of patent period in 2019 and the wingtip with widget out in 2038
c) the raked wingtip and the raked wingtip with widget both out of patent period in 2038.

interesting.

Fred
Image
 
brindabella
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:30 am

Flyglobal wrote:
I expect that Airbus will launch the XLR within 2019 for 2023 to have some alternative for the upcoming 797 launch and relatively close to this.
I also expect Airbus that one of the intentions is to complicate the business case for the 797. The XLR will not cover the 797, but if they cut in 20% (+) into 797 territory and the 797 business case gets even more complicated. This is a prediction.
The 797 has to be launched anyways and then depending how attractive the remaining 80% are, airbus may launch a rewinged A321 NW and A322 NW (NW= New Wing).

Flyglobal
(Armchair CEO for Airbus Monday- Wednesday, for Boeing Thursday to Saturday)


:checkmark: Nice summary.

High chance of realisation, IMO.
(I have a further leg to the sequence whereby BA actually launches a NW on the MAX10/whatever.
This would be after the Airbus moves, those being likely very much as above.
BA may do this despite having already launched the 797. But no support for this idea so far. :boggled: )

However I take extreme umbrage at:

Flyglobal wrote:
(Armchair CEO for Airbus Monday- Wednesday, for Boeing Thursday to Saturday)


How could that be? I have been the Armchair CEO for Airbus and Boeing on alternate days for a very, very long time now.

:mad:

:D

cheers
Billy
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24773
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:19 pm

seahawk wrote:
Or they optimized for a slightly longer stage length.

Are you trying to say there is more than "fan envy" going on here? :biggrin:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:38 pm

StTim wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
jagraham wrote:

Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. The A350 / A330NEO sharklet is Airbus' response and produces comparable (and perhaps a little better) results.


I do not believe that a trivial wing form can be patented, at least internationally. The invention threshold for a patent is quite high: you cannot patent something that any average engineer could invent when presented the problem (unless discovering the problem is an invention as itself). Optimizing the wingtip seems a routine work for an average engineer in the field.

The specific form for the specific wing in a specific plane of course has other IPR's. That is, you cannot just copy it, but if you end up with a similar form by your own work, go ahead.

Oh you would be surprised what the US Patent Office has allowed to be patented. It is an ongoing issue is certain industries.


The US patent office has at some time switched over to just accept patents without verifying the patent. The question if those patents hold up, come up when the patent is defended in a court of law. That makes it easier for big corporations with enough money and lawyers and worse for the small guy.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:55 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
StTim wrote:
YIMBY wrote:

I do not believe that a trivial wing form can be patented, at least internationally. The invention threshold for a patent is quite high: you cannot patent something that any average engineer could invent when presented the problem (unless discovering the problem is an invention as itself). Optimizing the wingtip seems a routine work for an average engineer in the field.

The specific form for the specific wing in a specific plane of course has other IPR's. That is, you cannot just copy it, but if you end up with a similar form by your own work, go ahead.

Oh you would be surprised what the US Patent Office has allowed to be patented. It is an ongoing issue is certain industries.


The US patent office has at some time switched over to just accept patents without verifying the patent. The question if those patents hold up, come up when the patent is defended in a court of law. That makes it easier for big corporations with enough money and lawyers and worse for the small guy.


The US patent law is indeed very different from European and international patent laws. To protect a product globally you have to be granted a patent in every country where you want to protect it (Within European Patent Convention, one patentability procedure is sufficient for all countries, but a separate patent application must be filed to each country, with respective fees.)

What would happen if Airbus would just break a US patent which is not legally valid in Europe? No one can sue them in Europe, but can there be other sanctions by the US government?
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4645
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:23 pm

YIMBY wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
StTim wrote:
Oh you would be surprised what the US Patent Office has allowed to be patented. It is an ongoing issue is certain industries.


The US patent office has at some time switched over to just accept patents without verifying the patent. The question if those patents hold up, come up when the patent is defended in a court of law. That makes it easier for big corporations with enough money and lawyers and worse for the small guy.


The US patent law is indeed very different from European and international patent laws. To protect a product globally you have to be granted a patent in every country where you want to protect it (Within European Patent Convention, one patentability procedure is sufficient for all countries, but a separate patent application must be filed to each country, with respective fees.)

What would happen if Airbus would just break a US patent which is not legally valid in Europe? No one can sue them in Europe, but can there be other sanctions by the US government?

Consider the case of Samsung vs Apple which the court think smartphone made by Samsung violated Apple's "slide to unlock" function and also "rebound at the end of menu" animation, they could order Airbus to pay Boeing a fine/fee and also ban them from being imported into the US until the case get sort out, and maybe Airbus would have to pay Boeing a certain amount of money in the future for each and every aircraft they sold that have such feature
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:34 pm

brindabella wrote:
High chance of realisation, IMO.
(I have a further leg to the sequence whereby BA actually launches a NW on the MAX10/whatever.
This would be after the Airbus moves, those being likely very much as above.
BA may do this despite having already launched the 797. But no support for this idea so far. :boggled: )

However I take extreme umbrage at:

Flyglobal wrote:
(Armchair CEO for Airbus Monday- Wednesday, for Boeing Thursday to Saturday)


How could that be? I have been the Armchair CEO for Airbus and Boeing on alternate days for a very, very long time now.

:mad:

:D

cheers


I thought you are an enthusiast that cheered on good decisions for aviation and panned the dumb choices. Both A and B seem to make good decisions some days and bad other days.

Yes I am generally a Boeing fanboy but find both the 321 today and the success of the 330 over its life great to watch.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:59 pm

We now know Airbus is hiring designers and engineers for a an all new narrowbody and A350neo upgrade. The same article confirms Airbus is planning both an A321XLR and A320 Plus before launching the new narrowbody.

I thought this is relevant to the current thread, so I'm mentioning it here.

Link to other thread by JerseyFlyer:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1408963

Link to article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... gined-a350
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7156
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:22 pm

With this announcement, can we then expect an A322XLR with new wings and better range to come out much later, which could make those looking at the A321XLR as currently proposed to have second thoughts and wait longer :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24773
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:06 pm

Devilfish wrote:
With this announcement, can we then expect an A322XLR with new wings and better range to come out much later, which could make those looking at the A321XLR as currently proposed to have second thoughts and wait longer :?:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1JE0ZE gave us a good summary of the A321+ and A321++:

In a surprise move, Airbus previously halted work on a study dubbed A320neo-plus, Reuters reported in April.

The advanced blueprint would have featured increased fuel capacity, a longer fuselage and improvements to the A321’s wing.

A longer-term project, code-named A320neo-plus-plus,” with an all-new carbon-fibre wing, has also been put to one side.

What we know of A321XLR suggests that it covering the fuel capacity aspect of A321+ along with related MTOW growth, but not a stretch.

In that way, we can think of A321XLR as A321-plus-minus! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

It seems sensible to me that Airbus decided the most urgently required feature that could be developed the quickest and with the least risk and the least disruption to the production line and order book is adding the extra fuel capacity into the A321, so they carved that off in to its own project, and left the stretch (and perhaps the aero tweaks?) to another project.

The actual A321+ will have a stretch, so you can think of it as A322XLR.

The actual A321++ will have a new CFRP wing (the one mentioned in the Brexit piece) presumably with A322 length too, and perhaps the fabled A320.5 stretch too.

We live in interesting times.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9306
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 22, 2018 4:01 pm

YIMBY wrote:
What would happen if Airbus would just break a US patent which is not legally valid in Europe? No one can sue them in Europe, but can there be other sanctions by the US government?


Airbus operates a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary. Any litigation in the U.S. against Airbus would name this subsidiary as the defendant.

mjoelnir wrote:
The US patent office has at some time switched over to just accept patents without verifying the patent. The question if those patents hold up, come up when the patent is defended in a court of law. That makes it easier for big corporations with enough money and lawyers and worse for the small guy.


Just as often, it works the other way: small guys targeting big corporations with weak patent claims because it is cheaper for the big corporation to settle than defend itself in court.

Allow me to also introduce the concept of the "vanity patent." Lots of engineers at big corporations apply for patents that are often non-innovative or non-useful because a.) the company will provide some kind of financial reward if the patent is granted, b.) it boosts your professional standing to be named on a patent, and c.) the company's legal department will carry the cost of the application. So why not just submit willy nilly patent applications? It's low risk, high reward. The business may later find those patents are indefensible, but that isn't a concern to the engineers who long ago received the patent.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9410
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 22, 2018 4:46 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Allow me to also introduce the concept of the "vanity patent." Lots of engineers at big corporations apply for patents that are often non-innovative or non-useful because a.) the company will provide some kind of financial reward if the patent is granted, b.) it boosts your professional standing to be named on a patent, and c.) the company's legal department will carry the cost of the application. So why not just submit willy nilly patent applications? It's low risk, high reward. The business may later find those patents are indefensible, but that isn't a concern to the engineers who long ago received the patent.


d) it creates a mine field aiding in deep pocket (counter) litigation.
e) patents are used as tangibles in corporate bartering. numbers do count.
( though value wise the ${big corp} stamp counts
often the quality is comparable to the bundled credit the big banks peddled. :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
jagraham
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:33 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
jagraham wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

First flight of the 764ER was in October 1999, so a standard 20 year patent won't last beyond next year. Unless Boeing didn't patent it till after first flight then it's null and void...

Fred


Continuation-in-part is a fascinating subject. Ask your patent lawyer.


Continuation in part appears to say that you can apply for additional claims on an initial patent which keep the initial patents original filing date due to the fact that they are a build on an already patented part but they still require the additional claims to be "new" and "novel" so it cannot be used as a stalling tactic and the burdens of proof still remain as if it were a new patent.

So the question is if Boeing developed the raked wingtip in 1999 then then filed a CIP in 2018 for a widget for the raked wingtip which helped, would the result be:
a) the raked wingtip and the wingtip with widget both run out of the patent period in 2019
b) the raked wingtip be out of patent period in 2019 and the wingtip with widget out in 2038
c) the raked wingtip and the raked wingtip with widget both out of patent period in 2038.

interesting.

Fred


A couple of clarifications . .

1) The CIP process still requires ‘novel’, but does not require ‘novel’ relative to the original patent. Improvements can be patented which might otherwise not be novel with respect to the original patent’. Of course exact duplicate claims will be rejected
2) The CIP process does not extend the term of the original patent. As my patent lawyer described the technique to me, the inventor should implement improvements with CIPs such that the original patent was useless in the marketplace when the 20 years was up. Easier said than done, but that is what a patent lawyer will try to get the inventor to accomplish
 
A3801000
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:15 pm

Guillaume Faury, who heads the company’s jetliner arm and is due to become group chief executive officer next year:

'Plans to extend the capabilities of the A321 with an XLR model -- for extra long range -- are gaining traction with customers and will be detailed next year, he said.'

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... d-size-jet
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7156
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:49 pm

There might be more details here, though it requires registration.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ar-453906/

Quote:
"Airbus appears to be edging closer to the launch of the A321XLR, with top management continuing to explore options for the development of a longer-range narrowbody variant and one major leasing customer convinced that the airframer will take the plunge."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:32 pm

It looks like the A321XLR may be settling on an MTOW of 101t

The upgrade would boost the A321’s take-off weight to some 101 tonnes for the A321XLR compared with 97 tonnes for the longest-range A321LR, which can carry 206 people 4,000 miles in two classes and went to its first customer last month.

It would rely on more powerful engines already offered as an option, giving 33,000 pounds of thrust instead of 30,000 pounds.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1OJ14X

A modest 8,000lbs (4% MTOW increase over the A321LR and 8% over the A321) using a thrust increase seems like an effective low cost way to boost range. It also looks like the Transatlantic market is where they are focusing on

Among Airbus’s top targets will be the major U.S. airlines, who could use the A321XLR to serve transatlantic routes with premium seats and who are also likely to be wooed by Boeing for its new jet. Their decisions could influence the fate of both projects.

The A321XLR would be less attractive for low-cost carriers who could not exploit the extra range without giving up part of their 240-seat preferred layout due to structural limits.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24773
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:46 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
It looks like the A321XLR may be settling on an MTOW of 101t

The upgrade would boost the A321’s take-off weight to some 101 tonnes for the A321XLR compared with 97 tonnes for the longest-range A321LR, which can carry 206 people 4,000 miles in two classes and went to its first customer last month.

It would rely on more powerful engines already offered as an option, giving 33,000 pounds of thrust instead of 30,000 pounds.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1OJ14X

A modest 8,000lbs (4% MTOW increase over the A321LR and 8% over the A321) using a thrust increase seems like an effective low cost way to boost range. It also looks like the Transatlantic market is where they are focusing on

Among Airbus’s top targets will be the major U.S. airlines, who could use the A321XLR to serve transatlantic routes with premium seats and who are also likely to be wooed by Boeing for its new jet. Their decisions could influence the fate of both projects.

The A321XLR would be less attractive for low-cost carriers who could not exploit the extra range without giving up part of their 240-seat preferred layout due to structural limits.

Yes, and it should be losing the weight of a few ACTs as well, so it will be a solid improvement over A321LR.

I guess AB is testing the waters till mid 2019 but it seems to be a no brainer, they should just go ahead and launch it.

Maybe they're holding their fire to counter a NMA launch, but IMHO the XLR announcement isn't going to measure up well against an NMA launch.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
It looks like the A321XLR may be settling on an MTOW of 101t

The upgrade would boost the A321’s take-off weight to some 101 tonnes for the A321XLR compared with 97 tonnes for the longest-range A321LR, which can carry 206 people 4,000 miles in two classes and went to its first customer last month.

It would rely on more powerful engines already offered as an option, giving 33,000 pounds of thrust instead of 30,000 pounds.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1OJ14X

A modest 8,000lbs (4% MTOW increase over the A321LR and 8% over the A321) using a thrust increase seems like an effective low cost way to boost range. It also looks like the Transatlantic market is where they are focusing on

Among Airbus’s top targets will be the major U.S. airlines, who could use the A321XLR to serve transatlantic routes with premium seats and who are also likely to be wooed by Boeing for its new jet. Their decisions could influence the fate of both projects.

The A321XLR would be less attractive for low-cost carriers who could not exploit the extra range without giving up part of their 240-seat preferred layout due to structural limits.

Yes, and it should be losing the weight of a few ACTs as well, so it will be a solid improvement over A321LR.

I guess AB is testing the waters till mid 2019 but it seems to be a no brainer, they should just go ahead and launch it.

Maybe they're holding their fire to counter a NMA launch, but IMHO the XLR announcement isn't going to measure up well against an NMA launch.


It does seem like a no brainer if they have some airlines interested. Airbus marketing would have a solid understanding of what their base of A321 operators want.

The A321XLR and A321LR are using fancy acronyms for MTOW increases that are pretty normal in the industry. The A321XLR is an 8% MTOW increase over the A321 just like how the 737-900ER was an 8% MTOW increase over the 737-900. The A330 MTOW increase 14% over the years and never earned an LR or XLR designation. I think Airbus marketing is trying to make a splash to get as much attention away from the NMA as they can. The A321XLR does slightly close the middle of the market gap by a few percentage points.

The A321LR and A321XLR MTOW bumps should help Airbus address the disparity in 737s being more commonly used on longer flights than A320s

Image

Source may be a bit biased, but the information is based on the real world
https://randy.newairplane.com/2018/05/2 ... the-globe/
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:16 pm

Revelation wrote:

Maybe they're holding their fire to counter a NMA launch, but IMHO the XLR announcement isn't going to measure up well against an NMA launch.


I agree. I think it would be in their best interest to launch this variant now - and possibly secure some orders before Boeing launch their NMA. The A321XLR will probably be a great aircraft, but it might become an A330 vs 787 situation with regards to leap in technology etc.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:20 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Maybe they're holding their fire to counter a NMA launch, but IMHO the XLR announcement isn't going to measure up well against an NMA launch.


I agree. I think it would be in their best interest to launch this variant now - and possibly secure some orders before Boeing launch their NMA. The A321XLR will probably be a great aircraft, but it might become an A330 vs 787 situation with regards to leap in technology etc.


There is expected to be a decent size, capabilty and weight difference, so it may be like the A330 vs 767 or 757 vs MD80 or A320 vs 737-400 or A380 vs 747-8. There would be some airlines competing the A321XLR vs NMA, but not all RFPs May overlap between the NMA and an A321XLR. I see the A321XLR as having a compelling advantage over the 737-10 when it comes to range for airlines that need it.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14094
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:53 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The A321XLR and A321LR are using fancy acronyms for MTOW increases that are pretty normal in the industry. The A321XLR is an 8% MTOW increase over the A321 just like how the 737-900ER was an 8% MTOW increase over the 737-900. The A330 MTOW increase 14% over the years and never earned an LR or XLR designation. I think Airbus marketing is trying to make a splash to get as much attention away from the NMA as they can. The A321XLR does slightly close the middle of the market gap by a few percentage points.


Interesting, I had understood the A321NEO to A321LR mod was a significant operation, relocating systems etc. Even more for the 737-900 to 900ER, extra door, new buckhead etc. leading to a significant OEW bump. If an A321 XLR would be able to do 185 seats 4500NM reliably, at 30-40% lower costs than a 757-200, than I could understand why even the A321LR got a lot more airline support than the 737-10 or NMA so far.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:23 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The A321XLR and A321LR are using fancy acronyms for MTOW increases that are pretty normal in the industry. The A321XLR is an 8% MTOW increase over the A321 just like how the 737-900ER was an 8% MTOW increase over the 737-900. The A330 MTOW increase 14% over the years and never earned an LR or XLR designation. I think Airbus marketing is trying to make a splash to get as much attention away from the NMA as they can. The A321XLR does slightly close the middle of the market gap by a few percentage points.


Interesting, I had understood the A321NEO to A321LR mod was a significant operation, relocating systems etc. Even more for the 737-900 to 900ER, extra door, new buckhead etc. leading to a significant OEW bump. If an A321 XLR would be able to do 185 seats 4500NM reliably, at 30-40% lower costs than a 757-200, than I could understand why even the A321LR got a lot more airline support than the 737-10 or NMA so far.


How many airlines have ordered the A321LR and how many were ordered? I assume you know since you say it got a lot more support than the 737-10 which has over 400 commitments.
 
B764er
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:23 pm

Boeing must come up with something original and revolutionary a bit quicker, because Airbus is a good competitor and this MoM race is only heating up more. I'm sure Airbus will have to put a multiple wheel MLG on the 321 to spread the weight. And to have wait 7 more years for the 797 seems like a long time. And that's a lot of jet exhaust Boeing is going to swallow in the meantime.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10852
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:30 pm

B764er wrote:
Boeing must come up with something original and revolutionary a bit quicker, because Airbus is a good competitor and this MoM race is only heating up more. I'm sure Airbus will have to put a multiple wheel MLG on the 321 to spread the weight. And to have wait 7 more years for the 797 seems like a long time. And that's a lot of jet exhaust Boeing is going to swallow in the meantime.

Will the 797 will be bigger than this plane. A321XLR doesn’t solve the size issue. It will hurt the 797’s business case some (which is the aim), but it is not a full solution to the MOM problem.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14094
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:04 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The A321XLR and A321LR are using fancy acronyms for MTOW increases that are pretty normal in the industry. The A321XLR is an 8% MTOW increase over the A321 just like how the 737-900ER was an 8% MTOW increase over the 737-900. The A330 MTOW increase 14% over the years and never earned an LR or XLR designation. I think Airbus marketing is trying to make a splash to get as much attention away from the NMA as they can. The A321XLR does slightly close the middle of the market gap by a few percentage points.


Interesting, I had understood the A321NEO to A321LR mod was a significant operation, relocating systems etc. Even more for the 737-900 to 900ER, extra door, new buckhead etc. leading to a significant OEW bump. If an A321 XLR would be able to do 185 seats 4500NM reliably, at 30-40% lower costs than a 757-200, than I could understand why even the A321LR got a lot more airline support than the 737-10 or NMA so far.


How many airlines have ordered the A321LR and how many were ordered? I assume you know since you say it got a lot more support than the 737-10 which has over 400 commitments.


Airbus announced its joint FAA/EASA certification on 2 October 2018, including ETOPS up to 180 min allowing any transatlantic route.[78] As original launch operator Primera Air ceased operations, the first will be delivered to Israeli carrier Arkia, while 120 orders have been secured from about 12 operators: Norwegian, TAP Air Portugal, Air Transat, Aer Lingus, Air Astana, Air Arabia and Air Azores will receive theirs from 2019, and Jetstar and Peach in 2020.[79] On 13 November 2018, Arkia received the first A321LR, featuring 220 seats in a single-class and to be deployed to London, Paris, Barcelona for up to 5h sectors, or to Zanzibar and the Seychelles, saying it is the first narrow-body more efficient than the 757-300 it operates.[80]

......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family#A321LR

The 400 commitments for the new 737-10 look impressive, if you carefully ignore it are mostly old order conversion from airlines holding off the best in class 737-9 and these orders proved less than rock solid. That's why they went -10 after all, to keep United on board.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1740
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
It looks like the A321XLR may be settling on an MTOW of 101t

The upgrade would boost the A321’s take-off weight to some 101 tonnes for the A321XLR compared with 97 tonnes for the longest-range A321LR, which can carry 206 people 4,000 miles in two classes and went to its first customer last month.

It would rely on more powerful engines already offered as an option, giving 33,000 pounds of thrust instead of 30,000 pounds.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1OJ14X

A modest 8,000lbs (4% MTOW increase over the A321LR and 8% over the A321) using a thrust increase seems like an effective low cost way to boost range. It also looks like the Transatlantic market is where they are focusing on

Among Airbus’s top targets will be the major U.S. airlines, who could use the A321XLR to serve transatlantic routes with premium seats and who are also likely to be wooed by Boeing for its new jet. Their decisions could influence the fate of both projects.

The A321XLR would be less attractive for low-cost carriers who could not exploit the extra range without giving up part of their 240-seat preferred layout due to structural limits.

Yes, and it should be losing the weight of a few ACTs as well, so it will be a solid improvement over A321LR.

I guess AB is testing the waters till mid 2019 but it seems to be a no brainer, they should just go ahead and launch it.

Maybe they're holding their fire to counter a NMA launch, but IMHO the XLR announcement isn't going to measure up well against an NMA launch.
Why would it lose a few ACT's? Don't they need to fill those up to get the additional range?
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:15 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:

Interesting, I had understood the A321NEO to A321LR mod was a significant operation, relocating systems etc. Even more for the 737-900 to 900ER, extra door, new buckhead etc. leading to a significant OEW bump. If an A321 XLR would be able to do 185 seats 4500NM reliably, at 30-40% lower costs than a 757-200, than I could understand why even the A321LR got a lot more airline support than the 737-10 or NMA so far.


How many airlines have ordered the A321LR and how many were ordered? I assume you know since you say it got a lot more support than the 737-10 which has over 400 commitments.


Airbus announced its joint FAA/EASA certification on 2 October 2018, including ETOPS up to 180 min allowing any transatlantic route.[78] As original launch operator Primera Air ceased operations, the first will be delivered to Israeli carrier Arkia, while 120 orders have been secured from about 12 operators: Norwegian, TAP Air Portugal, Air Transat, Aer Lingus, Air Astana, Air Arabia and Air Azores will receive theirs from 2019, and Jetstar and Peach in 2020.[79] On 13 November 2018, Arkia received the first A321LR, featuring 220 seats in a single-class and to be deployed to London, Paris, Barcelona for up to 5h sectors, or to Zanzibar and the Seychelles, saying it is the first narrow-body more efficient than the 757-300 it operates.[80]

......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family#A321LR

The 400 commitments for the new 737-10 look impressive, if you carefully ignore it are mostly old order conversion from airlines holding off the best in class 737-9 and these orders proved less than rock solid. That's why they went -10 after all, to keep United on board.


That is some interesting logic for how 120 exceeds 400. So far the A321LR is a rather small segment of the A321neo orders. I would assume a number of A321LRs will come from existing A321neo orders.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9410
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:17 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
Why would it lose a few ACT's? Don't they need to fill those up to get the additional range?


The idea is to replace ACT with permanent tankage that fills the full lower lobe cross section and then some nooks and crannies.
For just the lower lobe you get more than the volume of 3 ACT cooped up in the length of ~2ACT.
As an example you'd lose the dead weight of 3ACT and gain one ACT worth of holdspace.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14094
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:44 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

How many airlines have ordered the A321LR and how many were ordered? I assume you know since you say it got a lot more support than the 737-10 which has over 400 commitments.


Airbus announced its joint FAA/EASA certification on 2 October 2018, including ETOPS up to 180 min allowing any transatlantic route.[78] As original launch operator Primera Air ceased operations, the first will be delivered to Israeli carrier Arkia, while 120 orders have been secured from about 12 operators: Norwegian, TAP Air Portugal, Air Transat, Aer Lingus, Air Astana, Air Arabia and Air Azores will receive theirs from 2019, and Jetstar and Peach in 2020.[79] On 13 November 2018, Arkia received the first A321LR, featuring 220 seats in a single-class and to be deployed to London, Paris, Barcelona for up to 5h sectors, or to Zanzibar and the Seychelles, saying it is the first narrow-body more efficient than the 757-300 it operates.[80]

......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family#A321LR

The 400 commitments for the new 737-10 look impressive, if you carefully ignore it are mostly old order conversion from airlines holding off the best in class 737-9 and these orders proved less than rock solid. That's why they went -10 after all, to keep United on board.


That is some interesting logic for how 120 exceeds 400. So far the A321LR is a rather small segment of the A321neo orders. I would assume a number of A321LRs will come from existing A321neo orders.


You are correct, if we ignore the A321NEO beats the future 737-10 in terms of range - capacity & Airbus sold well, 2000 with 52 customers so far, what are we even discussing.. https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/2018/02/10/wow-air-sets-record-for-longest-a321neo-service/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14094
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:02 pm

WIederling wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
Why would it lose a few ACT's? Don't they need to fill those up to get the additional range?


The idea is to replace ACT with permanent tankage that fills the full lower lobe cross section and then some nooks and crannies.
For just the lower lobe you get more than the volume of 3 ACT cooped up in the length of ~2ACT.
As an example you'd lose the dead weight of 3ACT and gain one ACT worth of holdspace.


Wiederlang has this been confirmed? Of course space could be used a bit better, but I don't expect miracles. Will some of the wheel bay space be used? Or in expansion in front of the center wing tank? Any new fuel tank needs structural integrity & safety margins too.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24773
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:15 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:

The 400 commitments for the new 737-10 look impressive, if you carefully ignore it are mostly old order conversion from airlines holding off the best in class 737-9 and these orders proved less than rock solid. That's why they went -10 after all, to keep United on board.

That is some interesting logic for how 120 exceeds 400. So far the A321LR is a rather small segment of the A321neo orders. I would assume a number of A321LRs will come from existing A321neo orders.

You are correct, if we ignore the A321NEO beats the future 737-10 in terms of range - capacity & Airbus sold well, 2000 with 52 customers so far, what are we even discussing.. https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/2018/02/10/wow-air-sets-record-for-longest-a321neo-service/

Ignore the bird in the hand, look at that one in the bush...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
WIederling
Posts: 9410
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:16 pm

keesje wrote:
Wiederlang has this been confirmed? Of course space could be used a bit better, but I don't expect miracles. Will some of the wheel bay space be used? Or in expansion in front of the center wing tank? Any new fuel tank needs structural integrity & safety margins too.

Image


This is my assumption after fitting what information is available into a design solution.
Maybe Airbus has a different design solution?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20538
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:46 pm

WIederling wrote:
keesje wrote:
Wiederlang has this been confirmed? Of course space could be used a bit better, but I don't expect miracles. Will some of the wheel bay space be used? Or in expansion in front of the center wing tank? Any new fuel tank needs structural integrity & safety margins too.

Image


This is my assumption after fitting what information is available into a design solution.
Maybe Airbus has a different design solution?

Make the tank installed instead of removable saves tremendous weight and adds volume. Integrate the tank in with another tank saves weight in components (valves, level sensors, innerting plumbing). With 3 ACTs I could save 500kg plus find more volume for about 1200kg and reduce unusable fuel by at least 120 kg. If someone being paid to optimize the solution cannot do better...
Winter is coming.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:26 pm

lightsaber wrote:
WIederling wrote:
keesje wrote:
Wiederlang has this been confirmed? Of course space could be used a bit better, but I don't expect miracles. Will some of the wheel bay space be used? Or in expansion in front of the center wing tank? Any new fuel tank needs structural integrity & safety margins too.

Image


This is my assumption after fitting what information is available into a design solution.
Maybe Airbus has a different design solution?

Make the tank installed instead of removable saves tremendous weight and adds volume. Integrate the tank in with another tank saves weight in components (valves, level sensors, innerting plumbing). With 3 ACTs I could save 500kg plus find more volume for about 1200kg and reduce unusable fuel by at least 120 kg. If someone being paid to optimize the solution cannot do better...


The Airbus announcement mentioned the wheel wells. In addition, the wing glove outside of the vertical walls is mostly empty.

The 321LR has 3x ACTs at .5t each (according to Leeham), carrying 3x 2.4t of fuel. Again, according to Leeham, each 2.4t adds 400nm range.
Airbus is advertising the A321XLR at 4700nm, which would require the equivalent of 5 ACTs.
The range increase requires just under 4.8t of fuel over an A321LR, but removing the structure and ancillary equipment for 3 ACTs (since the center tank already has plumbing) saves 1.5t before any structural strengthening so 3.2 extra tons for the fuel. Leaving 0.8t for strengthening and baffling. Seems reasonable.
The real question is volume. The A321LR must be hand loaded as it is; the A321XLR cannot take up any more lower deck space without reducing the passenger count. I would say that the spaces in the hold around the center tanks would add up to about 1/2 of an ACT, which means that Airbus thinks they have about 1 1/2 ACTs worth of volume in the wing gloves and the wheel wells. That is pushing the limits much more, but it's an easy analysis for CATIA. So I must assume Airbus did indeed find the volume.
We shall soon see . .
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:35 am

I am right in assuming the XLR will simply be a further optimisation of the LR model?

One of my concerns with the previously touted A321+/+ models revolved around them being a long-range sub-model which compromised their efficiency over shorter routes.

From what I am reading an XLR could simply end up being a A321LR with a stronger landing gear and cargo hold tank options (i.e. the A321LR could eventually transition to the XLR's fuel tank system).

If this is the case the XLR could be less of a niche aircraft than the A321 +/++ models
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos