Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
StTim
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:45 pm

keesje wrote:
Agree with Newbie, they are all A321 variations. I wonder if they can keep an XLR mostly the same too. It's a compromise between optimal configuration and simplicity/commonality. It seems Airbus has choosen for maximal commonality so far.


If they create integral tanks taking part of the hold it will impact commonality as they could not then go back to the standard capacity hold.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

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

Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:13 pm

keesje wrote:
Agree with Newbie, they are all A321 variations. I wonder if they can keep an XLR mostly the same too. It's a compromise between optimal configuration and simplicity/commonality. It seems Airbus has choosen for maximal commonality so far.


I'd suggest if/when the A321XLR comes to market the LR and XLR will basically become the same aircraft, but with additional options for fuel tank storage and higher thrust engines.

I suspect what the LR would gain in using the XLR fuel tank systems, it would partly loose by using the heavier landing gear and air frame structures.

I can't see a situation where it would be advantages for Airbus and the airlines to have two A321 long range sub-models with fundamentally different systems and aircraft structures.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:02 am

LDRA wrote:
The space behind main landing gear bay, if Airbus decides to go forward with converting that space into tankage, maybe they can standardise the design to 97ton A321NEO. It's worth 1.6ton of fuel, without takeout any space. I am assuming minimal weight, since it is integral tank

Leeham reported the XLR would require extending the gear bay pressure vessel roof aft over the hold for the length of the two ACTs. I don't imagine they would do a further variant just with tankage in the space behind the landing gear bay - it would require a further costly engineering exercise for the sake of 2000l of fuel.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:30 am

Qatar converted 10 A321NEO's to LR's.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/qatar-airways-selects-airbus-a321lr/

Covers 80-90% of world population :wink2:

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

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

Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:07 pm

So there's now 146 disclosed orders for A321LR's across 11 operators. Probably a lot more undisclosed in the order book. When you think back in the day only about 40 of the 1000 odd 757 fleet were engaged in these long range routes, that's quite something. CAPA reckon up to 20 airlines operating the aircraft by 2020 - it'll be interesting to see what impact that has on the industry and the NMA.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:19 pm

It seems Air Lingus is adopting a configurations similar to Jetblue Mint layout.

I wonder if they will charge extra for the single seats..

Image

https://www.ausbt.com.au/here-is-aer-lingus-new-airbus-a321lr-business-class
"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

Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:46 pm

BaconButty wrote:
So there's now 146 disclosed orders for A321LR's across 11 operators. Probably a lot more undisclosed in the order book. When you think back in the day only about 40 of the 1000 odd 757 fleet were engaged in these long range routes, that's quite something. CAPA reckon up to 20 airlines operating the aircraft by 2020 - it'll be interesting to see what impact that has on the industry and the NMA.


The small segment of the market for 3200nm+ narrowbody routes does get a whole lot of attention. It is a constant balance between max range and efficiency. Increasing MTOW to allow more range increases operating costs by raising OEW, requiring unique landing gear parts, impacts engines, reduces cargo capacity, and increases landing fees. The average flight is only 800-1000nm. It is amazing how versatile airplanes have become, but versatility comes at a cost. Only the airlines that need the performance are ordering it, which is why we only have 146 orders.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:01 pm

tealnz wrote:
LDRA wrote:
The space behind main landing gear bay, if Airbus decides to go forward with converting that space into tankage, maybe they can standardise the design to 97ton A321NEO. It's worth 1.6ton of fuel, without takeout any space. I am assuming minimal weight, since it is integral tank

Leeham reported the XLR would require extending the gear bay pressure vessel roof aft over the hold for the length of the two ACTs. I don't imagine they would do a further variant just with tankage in the space behind the landing gear bay - it would require a further costly engineering exercise for the sake of 2000l of fuel.
´

The NX and NLR will be the standard variant of the A321neo in the future, the differences between the single frames the number of removable ACT and the certified MTOW up to 97 t.
The XLR would be than the long range variant. I would assume for the design of the XLR an extra unused volume of 2000 l would be well worth the effort. Perhaps that will become the standard version after some time.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:07 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
tealnz wrote:
LDRA wrote:
The space behind main landing gear bay, if Airbus decides to go forward with converting that space into tankage, maybe they can standardise the design to 97ton A321NEO. It's worth 1.6ton of fuel, without takeout any space. I am assuming minimal weight, since it is integral tank

Leeham reported the XLR would require extending the gear bay pressure vessel roof aft over the hold for the length of the two ACTs. I don't imagine they would do a further variant just with tankage in the space behind the landing gear bay - it would require a further costly engineering exercise for the sake of 2000l of fuel.
´

The NX and NLR will be the standard variant of the A321neo in the future, the differences between the single frames the number of removable ACT and the certified MTOW up to 97 t.
The XLR would be than the long range variant. I would assume for the design of the XLR an extra unused volume of 2000 l would be well worth the effort. Perhaps that will become the standard version after some time.


Do you have a source for that statement? It surprises me. Higher weight landing gear for example costs more to overhaul. I am surprised that operators of low weight A321s are willing to pay more for a heavier baseline airplane. Most airlines want maximum efficiency around 1000 miles since that is where the majority of flights are. Few flights are at MTOW
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:53 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Leeham reported the XLR would require extending the gear bay pressure vessel roof aft over the hold for the length of the two ACTs. I don't imagine they would do a further variant just with tankage in the space behind the landing gear bay - it would require a further costly engineering exercise for the sake of 2000l of fuel.
´

The NX and NLR will be the standard variant of the A321neo in the future, the differences between the single frames the number of removable ACT and the certified MTOW up to 97 t.
The XLR would be than the long range variant. I would assume for the design of the XLR an extra unused volume of 2000 l would be well worth the effort. Perhaps that will become the standard version after some time.


Do you have a source for that statement? It surprises me. Higher weight landing gear for example costs more to overhaul. I am surprised that operators of low weight A321s are willing to pay more for a heavier baseline airplane. Most airlines want maximum efficiency around 1000 miles since that is where the majority of flights are. Few flights are at MTOW


The A321NX is the future baseline aircraft . It is the new cabin flex version with door L2 and R2 removed, having the possibility of over wing exits instead. It is not heavier than the former A321neo with four doors, rather lighter. It will replace the 4 door version. With 97 t MTOW and 3 ACT it becomes the A321LR. The 97 t are also on offer without increased tankage.

For the A321XLR Airbus will increase the MTOW to most likely 101 t and use any unused volume to increase tankage. Furthermore replacing ACTs with fixed tanks will increase the available tank volume, while taking less space from the hold. It is not a given that this frame would be heavier than the A321NX.
That this frame could become the standard version is my opinion only. It would follow the usual way Airbus is managing the evolution of their frames.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:42 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
´

The NX and NLR will be the standard variant of the A321neo in the future, the differences between the single frames the number of removable ACT and the certified MTOW up to 97 t.
The XLR would be than the long range variant. I would assume for the design of the XLR an extra unused volume of 2000 l would be well worth the effort. Perhaps that will become the standard version after some time.


Do you have a source for that statement? It surprises me. Higher weight landing gear for example costs more to overhaul. I am surprised that operators of low weight A321s are willing to pay more for a heavier baseline airplane. Most airlines want maximum efficiency around 1000 miles since that is where the majority of flights are. Few flights are at MTOW


The A321NX is the future baseline aircraft . It is the new cabin flex version with door L2 and R2 removed, having the possibility of over wing exits instead. It is not heavier than the former A321neo with four doors, rather lighter. It will replace the 4 door version. With 97 t MTOW and 3 ACT it becomes the A321LR. The 97 t are also on offer without increased tankage.

For the A321XLR Airbus will increase the MTOW to most likely 101 t and use any unused volume to increase tankacapacity

Replacing ACTs with fixed tanks will increase the available tank volume, while taking less space from the hold. It is not a given that this frame would be heavier than the A321NX. That this frame could become the standard version is my opinion only. It would follow the usual way Airbus is managing the evolution of their frames.


People on this site claim an expanded fixed fueltank would weigh less that the standard ACT's. I have not seen any concept of the new tank configuration that is being studied for an A321XLR.

Image

Expanding capacity in front of the current centertank seems more logical than af, where the wheel bay sits. I guess base tankvolume would go up. Additional ACT's would remain part of the an A321XLR or A322 capacity for range configuration.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:59 am

It's set out clearly in earlier threads on the XLR, based on a mix of airline/lessor sources and a Leeham report. Leeham is the only diagram that's been published as far as I know. Their drawing shows a tank that fills the void immediately aft of the gear well and continues back to fill the space currently occupied by the two aft ACTs. It seems to be a conformal tank extending to the fuselage wall on both sides, with the cargo handling system also removed for that section of the hold. I think Leeham reported that technically it would still be possible to add an ACT in the forward hold but that likely MTOW/payload/range combinations made that configuration unlikely.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:03 pm

keesje wrote:
Expanding capacity in front of the current centertank seems more logical than af, where the wheel bay sits. I guess base tankvolume would go up. Additional ACT's would remain part of the an A321XLR or A322 capacity for range configuration.


Increased trim drag would mean you want your bulky but less dense items ahead of the centretank - within reason - otherwise you get balance problems.
 
masi1157
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:56 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:09 pm

keesje wrote:
Expanding capacity in front of the current centertank seems more logical than af, where the wheel bay sits. I guess base tankvolume would go up. Additional ACT's would remain part of the an A321XLR or A322 capacity for range configuration.

How would you access the ECS mixer bay and the cabin fans and filters installed there with a fixed tank in front?


Gruß, masi1157
517 different segments on 101 airlines to 212 airports in 55 countries
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:25 pm

masi1157 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Expanding capacity in front of the current centertank seems more logical than af, where the wheel bay sits. I guess base tankvolume would go up. Additional ACT's would remain part of the an A321XLR or A322 capacity for range configuration.

How would you access the ECS mixer bay and the cabin fans and filters installed there with a fixed tank in front?

Gruß, masi1157


A reshuffle would be needed and the extended fuel tank could share systems with the center tank. Of course you want to stay close to the CG, but that mains also you can't expand aft limitless.

Image
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0003/171156/varieties/antarctic.jpg

Space is are apparently already very tight for the A321LR. I've wondered if a A321XLR could be slightly (say a 40 inch ) longer allready to decomplex the belly situation a bit and create some space for fuel lower deck and e.g. a crew rest main deck without reducing passenger capacity.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:28 pm

Sure because the extra fuselage length does not add to your OEW, which does not force you to push your MTWO for the same payload.. oh wait...
 
brindabella
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:29 pm

jagraham wrote:
mjoelnir 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


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.


I always wondered what happened to that lawsuit.

The Aviation Partners complaint was (IIRC) that:

1) AB had made a mess of modern wingtip devices and so turned to Aviation Partners.
2) however after considerable work with Aviation Partners, AB ultimately terminated the relationship and basically decamped with the results of their joint efforts;
and then produced the A320 "sharklets"which were directly based-upon the joint design; but claimed it was theirs (AB).

And now it seems that Aviation Partners won.
Big time.

However they only won on a detail?
Seems unlikely to me. You should explain that.
A large judgement against AB would seem to substantiate the Aviation Partners claim that their Intellectual Property was stolen.
(Calling a spade a spade, finally).

Meanwhile the BA "raked" wingtip is inferior to the AB designs in every way.
Or so you say with no attribution whatever.

And yet (if I understand correctly), BA owns 50% of Aviation Partners?

If all that is right, the BA strategy seems amazingly daft and self-defeating.

cheers
Billy
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:47 pm

brindabella wrote:
jagraham wrote:
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.

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
https://www.airliners.net/forum/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.


I always wondered what happened to that lawsuit.

The Aviation Partners complaint was (IIRC) that:

1) AB had made a mess of modern wingtip devices and so turned to Aviation Partners.
2) however after considerable work with Aviation Partners, AB ultimately terminated the relationship and basically decamped with the results of their joint efforts;
and then produced the A320 "sharklets"which were directly based-upon the joint design; but claimed it was theirs (AB).

And now it seems that Aviation Partners won.
Big time.

However they only won on a detail?
Seems unlikely to me. You should explain that.
A large judgement against AB would seem to substantiate the Aviation Partners claim that their Intellectual Property was stolen.
(Calling a spade a spade, finally).

Meanwhile the BA "raked" wingtip is inferior to the AB designs in every way.
Or so you say with no attribution whatever.

And yet (if I understand correctly), BA owns 50% of Aviation Partners?

If all that is right, the BA strategy seems amazingly daft and self-defeating.

cheers


At some point Boeing Aviation Partners was negotiating Scimitar IP with Boeing..

Both companies claim to have arrived on the split-tip configuration for the 737 at nearly the same time by coincidence.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-aviation-partners-boeing-split-opinions-on-737-375348/

I know dozens of radical wingtips passed through dozens of tunnels for dozens of years.. IP (how aggressively it was claimed, when) seems complicated. MD11 wasn't a scimitar, was it?

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:55 pm

keesje wrote:
brindabella wrote:
jagraham wrote:

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
https://www.airliners.net/forum/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.


I always wondered what happened to that lawsuit.

The Aviation Partners complaint was (IIRC) that:

1) AB had made a mess of modern wingtip devices and so turned to Aviation Partners.
2) however after considerable work with Aviation Partners, AB ultimately terminated the relationship and basically decamped with the results of their joint efforts;
and then produced the A320 "sharklets"which were directly based-upon the joint design; but claimed it was theirs (AB).

And now it seems that Aviation Partners won.
Big time.

However they only won on a detail?
Seems unlikely to me. You should explain that.
A large judgement against AB would seem to substantiate the Aviation Partners claim that their Intellectual Property was stolen.
(Calling a spade a spade, finally).

Meanwhile the BA "raked" wingtip is inferior to the AB designs in every way.
Or so you say with no attribution whatever.

And yet (if I understand correctly), BA owns 50% of Aviation Partners?

If all that is right, the BA strategy seems amazingly daft and self-defeating.

cheers


At some point Boeing Aviation Partners was negotiating Scimitar IP with Boeing..

Both companies claim to have arrived on the split-tip configuration for the 737 at nearly the same time by coincidence.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-aviation-partners-boeing-split-opinions-on-737-375348/

I know dozens of radical wingtips passed through dozens of tunnels for dozens of years.. IP (how aggressively it was claimed, when) seems complicated. MD11 wasn't a scimitar, was it?

Image


This winglets are split but not scimitar. The back is straight not bend backwards.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:12 pm

brindabella wrote:
The Aviation Partners complaint was (IIRC) that:

1) AB had made a mess of modern wingtip devices and so turned to Aviation Partners.
2) however after considerable work with Aviation Partners, AB ultimately terminated the relationship and basically decamped with the results of their joint efforts;
and then produced the A320 "sharklets"which were directly based-upon the joint design; but claimed it was theirs (AB).

And now it seems that Aviation Partners won.
Big time.


Win big? No.

The relevant patent was reexamined and claim 1 voided
as all other claims were based on claim 1 the other claims did not need reexamination.

At one point AP stepped back from patent litigation and wanted money for services rendered.
No idea how that worked out.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7162
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:32 pm

Leeham's conceptual XLR seems to have a more modest range target than the fly-boosted one in #311..... :biggrin: .....

Image
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... 321XLR.png
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:40 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Leeham's conceptual XLR seems to have a more modest range target than the fly-boosted one in #311..... :biggrin: .....

Image
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... 321XLR.png


Airbus indicates 4700NM, but it really depends on payload. The intent seems clear TATL Europe mainland range (an hour+ further than 757) with a realistic cabin configuration of ~175 seats. https://airlinerwatch.com/airbus-reveals-more-details-about-the-a321xlr/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:13 pm

WIederling wrote:
brindabella wrote:
The Aviation Partners complaint was (IIRC) that:

1) AB had made a mess of modern wingtip devices and so turned to Aviation Partners.
2) however after considerable work with Aviation Partners, AB ultimately terminated the relationship and basically decamped with the results of their joint efforts;
and then produced the A320 "sharklets"which were directly based-upon the joint design; but claimed it was theirs (AB).

And now it seems that Aviation Partners won.
Big time.


Win big? No.

The relevant patent was reexamined and claim 1 voided
as all other claims were based on claim 1 the other claims did not need reexamination.

At one point AP stepped back from patent litigation and wanted money for services rendered.
No idea how that worked out.


If the entire patent was invalid USPTO would have removed the entire patent
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:40 am

keesje wrote:
Space is are apparently already very tight for the A321LR. I've wondered if a A321XLR could be slightly (say a 40 inch ) longer allready to decomplex the belly situation a bit and create some space for fuel lower deck and e.g. a crew rest main deck without reducing passenger capacity.

Unless the Leeham information is seriously wrong the configuration planned for the XLR addresses the space issue very neatly: the new integral belly tank requires only the same hold space as currently occupied by the two aft ACTs. And offers a substantial OEW saving. While also giving an extra ~700nm of range (from the additional tank volume). And freeing up the two positions in the forward hold currently required to install a third ACT.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:11 am

tealnz wrote:
keesje wrote:
Space is are apparently already very tight for the A321LR. I've wondered if a A321XLR could be slightly (say a 40 inch ) longer allready to decomplex the belly situation a bit and create some space for fuel lower deck and e.g. a crew rest main deck without reducing passenger capacity.

Unless the Leeham information is seriously wrong the configuration planned for the XLR addresses the space issue very neatly: the new integral belly tank requires only the same hold space as currently occupied by the two aft ACTs. And offers a substantial OEW saving. While also giving an extra ~700nm of range (from the additional tank volume). And freeing up the two positions in the forward hold currently required to install a third ACT.


I would like to see any confirmation / link. Apparently I missed it.

As far as I can see, the space/ weight that can be won be using integral tanks iso of ACT's is significant. But not enough for 700NM extra and an ACT less in front..

Image

Image

An ACT weighs roughly 2350kg ((1900kg fuel?) and an A321NEO roughly burns 2400kg/hr. An A321 flies~ 450nm/hr.

So for an extra 700NM you need at least an ACT quantity more and I doubt having integral tanks improves space use in the belly better then 10%. It also needs additional tank structure.

Bringing the A321 XLR to the required fuel capacity while still providing sufficient belly space seems a challenging job.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:55 am

keesje wrote:
tealnz wrote:
keesje wrote:
Space is are apparently already very tight for the A321LR. I've wondered if a A321XLR could be slightly (say a 40 inch ) longer allready to decomplex the belly situation a bit and create some space for fuel lower deck and e.g. a crew rest main deck without reducing passenger capacity.

Unless the Leeham information is seriously wrong the configuration planned for the XLR addresses the space issue very neatly: the new integral belly tank requires only the same hold space as currently occupied by the two aft ACTs. And offers a substantial OEW saving. While also giving an extra ~700nm of range (from the additional tank volume). And freeing up the two positions in the forward hold currently required to install a third ACT.


I would like to see any confirmation / link. Apparently I missed it.

As far as I can see, the space/ weight that can be won be using integral tanks iso of ACT's is significant. But not enough for 700NM extra and an ACT less in front..

Image

Image

An ACT weighs roughly 2350kg ((1900kg fuel?) and an A321NEO roughly burns 2400kg/hr. An A321 flies~ 450nm/hr.

So for an extra 700NM you need at least an ACT quantity more and I doubt having integral tanks improves space use in the belly better then 10%. It also needs additional tank structure.

Bringing the A321 XLR to the required fuel capacity while still providing sufficient belly space seems a challenging job.


There are no drawings out their for you to peruse. There was somewhere talk about what Airbus could do. First, they seem to have found some space, not huge, to extend the regular center tank, space that is not part of the regular cargo hold as it is. Second the claim is, a fixed tank will give more tankage volume with less weight than an ACT. You talk about 10 % extra, their talk was about one fixed tank taking the space of 2 ACT with the volume comparable to 3 ACT.
That would mean a fixed tank offering 50% more volume than the comparable ACT, the rest of the tankage increase would be the unused space near the current center tank. It may well be that I am to optimistic and the would still need one ACT to reach the claimed range.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:28 am

mjoelnir wrote:
keesje wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Unless the Leeham information is seriously wrong the configuration planned for the XLR addresses the space issue very neatly: the new integral belly tank requires only the same hold space as currently occupied by the two aft ACTs. And offers a substantial OEW saving. While also giving an extra ~700nm of range (from the additional tank volume). And freeing up the two positions in the forward hold currently required to install a third ACT.


I would like to see any confirmation / link. Apparently I missed it.

As far as I can see, the space/ weight that can be won be using integral tanks iso of ACT's is significant. But not enough for 700NM extra and an ACT less in front..

Image

Image

An ACT weighs roughly 2350kg ((1900kg fuel?) and an A321NEO roughly burns 2400kg/hr. An A321 flies~ 450nm/hr.

So for an extra 700NM you need at least an ACT quantity more and I doubt having integral tanks improves space use in the belly better then 10%. It also needs additional tank structure.

Bringing the A321 XLR to the required fuel capacity while still providing sufficient belly space seems a challenging job.


There are no drawings out their for you to peruse. There was somewhere talk about what Airbus could do. First, they seem to have found some space, not huge, to extend the regular center tank, space that is not part of the regular cargo hold as it is. Second the claim is, a fixed tank will give more tankage volume with less weight than an ACT. You talk about 10 % extra, their talk was about one fixed tank taking the space of 2 ACT with the volume comparable to 3 ACT.
That would mean a fixed tank offering 50% more volume than the comparable ACT, the rest of the tankage increase would be the unused space near the current center tank. It may well be that I am to optimistic and the would still need one ACT to reach the claimed range.



as you can see most of the fuel is in the center & wing tanks. I wondered if you can expand that volume in front (a seperate tank same cross section) by inserting a fuselage plug (e.g. 40 inch), you are gaining a lot of fuel capacity without reducing belly space. It seems to have been done before, but blocking the access a bit, blocking AKH operations. http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0003/171156/varieties/antarctic.jpg

The 5t MTOW boost Airbus mentioned could make it possible. Probably a 20 inch plug would be required aft of the wing to restore weight & balance. Extra cabin for seats, galley, lav's, crew rests ext. would be a big plus, but not the primary driver for the small stretch of a A321XLR.

There's a lot of existing ACT options available from the ACJ's. Apparently straight extra ACT's are not acceptable for larger batches of XLR aircraft..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:35 am

jagraham wrote:
If the entire patent was invalid USPTO would have removed the entire patent


They did. It exists as a historic doc trail only now afaics ending in "claim 1 voided".
The notice attached is that other claims were not reexamined ( and no need, they all are based on claim 1 as prerequisite )
A voided patent doesn't vanish from the archive all of a sudden but is a hint to prior art now.
Murphy is an optimist
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:46 pm

keesje wrote:
I would like to see any confirmation / link. Apparently I missed it. As far as I can see, the space/ weight that can be won be using integral tanks iso of ACT's is significant. But not enough for 700NM extra and an ACT less in front..

Go back to post #57. And follow the links.

mjoelnir wrote:
There are no drawings out their for you to peruse. There was somewhere talk about what Airbus could do. First, they seem to have found some space, not huge, to extend the regular center tank, space that is not part of the regular cargo hold as it is. Second the claim is, a fixed tank will give more tankage volume with less weight than an ACT. You talk about 10 % extra, their talk was about one fixed tank taking the space of 2 ACT with the volume comparable to 3 ACT. That would mean a fixed tank offering 50% more volume than the comparable ACT, the rest of the tankage increase would be the unused space near the current center tank. It may well be that I am to optimistic and the would still need one ACT to reach the claimed range.

The regular wing centre tank is in the wing box. The talk of expanding that was a furphy. What Airbus seem to be planning is to use a void between the gear bay and the aft hold as part of a new integral belly tank that also occupies the same amount of hold space as two ACTs. The void was reported by Leeham to be worth around two-thirds of an ACT.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:21 pm

WIederling wrote:
jagraham wrote:
If the entire patent was invalid USPTO would have removed the entire patent


They did. It exists as a historic doc trail only now afaics ending in "claim 1 voided".
The notice attached is that other claims were not reexamined ( and no need, they all are based on claim 1 as prerequisite )
A voided patent doesn't vanish from the archive all of a sudden but is a hint to prior art now.


If the USPTO wanted to void the entire patent, the notice would say that the entire patent was voided
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:20 pm

jagraham wrote:
WIederling wrote:
jagraham wrote:
If the entire patent was invalid USPTO would have removed the entire patent


They did. It exists as a historic doc trail only now afaics ending in "claim 1 voided".
The notice attached is that other claims were not reexamined ( and no need, they all are based on claim 1 as prerequisite )
A voided patent doesn't vanish from the archive all of a sudden but is a hint to prior art now.


If the USPTO wanted to void the entire patent, the notice would say that the entire patent was voided


Not everybody needs to be lead by the hand.
If you are so staunchly convinced of your position you might test it by reflecting it to the USPTO.
( If the Basler people had won you would not have been able to overhear or oversea that win.
What we see is Basler staying low profile on that topic. Ergo ...)

Actually when I had researched that patent in the recent past
I was first surprised about the "claim 1 voided, other claims not reexamined".
But the patent text makes the "chained" death of the patent claims obvious.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:46 pm

tealnz wrote:
keesje wrote:
I would like to see any confirmation / link. Apparently I missed it. As far as I can see, the space/ weight that can be won be using integral tanks iso of ACT's is significant. But not enough for 700NM extra and an ACT less in front..

Go back to post #57. And follow the links.

mjoelnir wrote:
There are no drawings out their for you to peruse. There was somewhere talk about what Airbus could do. First, they seem to have found some space, not huge, to extend the regular center tank, space that is not part of the regular cargo hold as it is. Second the claim is, a fixed tank will give more tankage volume with less weight than an ACT. You talk about 10 % extra, their talk was about one fixed tank taking the space of 2 ACT with the volume comparable to 3 ACT. That would mean a fixed tank offering 50% more volume than the comparable ACT, the rest of the tankage increase would be the unused space near the current center tank. It may well be that I am to optimistic and the would still need one ACT to reach the claimed range.

The regular wing centre tank is in the wing box. The talk of expanding that was a furphy. What Airbus seem to be planning is to use a void between the gear bay and the aft hold as part of a new integral belly tank that also occupies the same amount of hold space as two ACTs. The void was reported by Leeham to be worth around two-thirds of an ACT.



I followed the links and apart from Leehamnews. Bjorn suggested it as an option a year ago it seems a uncertain to me. I haven't seen the forgotten square meters void between the gear and the aft hold. I looked in manuals but can't really see. Can anyone have a look at drawings or an aircraft maybe take a picture.

The regular wing centre tank is in the wing box. The talk of expanding that was a furphy.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0003/171156/varieties/antarctic.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:33 pm

??
That's an ACT in a 319. The centre tank is the wingbox. The wing box is shaped and sized to attach the wings and carry loads from the wings into the fuselage structure. You don't modify it unless you're prepared to do serious engineering, testing and certification work for the whole centre section.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:55 pm

tealnz wrote:
??
That's an ACT in a 319. The centre tank is the wingbox. The wing box is shaped and sized to attach the wings and carry loads from the wings into the fuselage structure. You don't modify it unless you're prepared to do serious engineering, testing and certification work for the whole centre section.


I don't think so, those ACT's look different, bigger.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316517442/Ai ... ST-35-p2-5

Nobody is talking about modifying the wing box. Just extending fuel capacity with an integral similar cross section tank just in front of it.
BTW, the wing box will almost certainly be modied (beefed up) for an 101t XLR.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:23 am

keesje wrote:
I don't think so, those ACT's look different, bigger.

Unless someone can point us to a new tank design that has been certified for the A319 I think we take that as a standard ACT in an Australian Antarctic service A319.

keesje wrote:
Nobody is talking about modifying the wing box. Just extending fuel capacity with an integral similar cross section tank just in front of it.

That would be the first we've heard of an integral tank ahead of the wing box. Leeham in one of their articles specifically commented that there would be issues with adding a further integral tank in the forward hold (interference with other systems).

keesje wrote:
BTW, the wing box will almost certainly be modied (beefed up) for an 101t XLR.

We don't know that- I don't think we've seen any authoritative comment on where any reinforcement would be needed - gear or wing box or wing structure or skins or what. If the wing box does need strengthening it would presumably have to be done within the current outer dimensions. The point is that you don't stretch a wing box in order to expand fuel capacity unless you're doing major re-engineering of the centre section.
 
fabian9
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:27 am

Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:12 am

I felt this deserved to have its own thread (to keep Le Bourget Airbus orders thread clean of discussion about a new type being introduced). Mods feel free to delete if you disagree.

Press release:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/06/airbus-launches-longest-range-singleaisle-airliner-the-a321xlr.html

Good Move/Bad Move? Impact on Boeing NMA? Where are airlines going to take the XLR?

Discuss! :)
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:13 am

Great move. I think we hear another order in tomorrow's 10:30 press conference.
@DadCelo
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:17 am

Image
 
LSZH34
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:33 pm

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:20 am

Do we know more about the technical differences apart from the modified fuel system?
How about the landing gear? double-bogie?

And please let the racoon mask be optional...
Otherwise a great aircraft complementing the entire A320 family.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:21 am

Great move.

Simply has to be serious erosion under the foundations of the NMA business case.

If Boeing were looking to fit NMA into a range and capacity hole, most of the range hole has just disappeared. So now they have to beat A321 in seat/mile costs by probably upwards of 20% to win on capacity (otherwise its the same as B777 vs. A380; and we all know the result of that).
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:22 am

The real point-to-point aircraft! Congrats Airbus on yet another iteration of an already highly succesful design.

I hope to see Icelandair order this beauty soon. :crossfingers:
 
tomcat
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:23 am

So the XLR will have an internal fuel capacity of 36390l when adding the basic 23490l capacity of the A321 with the new 12900l rear center tank. On top of that, it can still be fitted with one ACT, bringing its max fuel capacity to 39510l. That is 31t of fuel when considering the 0.785kg/l fuel density used by Airbus.

Interesting to note that the landing gear will be modified but that the engine thrust requirements will remain unchanged thanks to an optimised wing trailing-edge flap configuration. This actually bodes well for an A322 :-).
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:23 am

LSZH34 wrote:
Do we know more about the technical differences apart from the modified fuel system?
How about the landing gear? double-bogie?

And please let the racoon mask be optional...
Otherwise a great aircraft complementing the entire A320 family.


All I could find was this:

The changes include: the new permanent Rear Centre Tank (RCT) for more fuel volume; a modified landing gear for an increased maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 101 metric tonnes; and an optimised wing trailing-edge flap configuration to preserve the same take-off performance and engine thrust requirements as today’s A321neo. In particular, the new optimised RCT holds more fuel than several optional Additional Centre Tanks (ACTs) did previously, while taking up less space in the cargo hold – thus freeing-up underfloor volume for additional cargo and baggage on long range routes.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... 21xlr.html

Image
Last edited by gatibosgru on Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
@DadCelo
 
Guillaume787
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:02 am

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:25 am

Great move by Airbus. To be frank, they seem to be more in-tune with the market needs and are fast to respond to customer requirements by strategically refining their product line. I'm particularly curious about the XLR's specs and how it will evolve. I am sure other airlines (including one or two US carriers) will also announce orders for the XLR in Paris.

Interesting and exciting times ahead! :)
 
opticalilyushin
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:26 am

I tried searching online for info about the RCT, but couldn't find anything in context to the A321. Will it be placed in the same location as an ACT would be, in the rear hold? Or is it built into the tail somewhere? How does the size compare to an ACT?
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:28 am

One of the best industry moves ever.

Max issues aside, airbus has really cornered the market here with the XLR.

I wouldn't be surprised by EIs to see the range actually go higher.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:30 am

We now have some data regarding the A321XLR

MTOW increased to 101 t.

A permanent rear center tank replaces the 2 ACT in the rear hold. Volume 12,900 l, takes the same space as the 2 ACT from the rear hold. Together with the standard tankage of 23,700 l that will give 36,600 l. An optional ACT, 3080 l, can be added in the forward hold, gives 39,680 l.
To compare, an A321neo with 3 ACT, each 3,080 l, sports 32,940 l.

Changes to the trailing edge and flaps, gives the same take off performance with the same engine as the A321neo 97 t MTOW.

A strengthened landing gear rounds out the picture.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:38 am

I see it can take (at least) one forward ACT as well.
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:39 am

LSZH34 wrote:
Do we know more about the technical differences apart from the modified fuel system?
How about the landing gear? double-bogie?

And please let the racoon mask be optional...
Otherwise a great aircraft complementing the entire A320 family.


"Modified landing gear" is what we get for now.

Would be thrilled to see the reintroduction of a double-bogey landing gear ala early Indian A320, but as I see it, it is unlikely as it would likely require a bit more belly space (which is quite needed esp on the XLR) as well as being heavier. My bet is on a structural reinforcement of the conventional A321 landing gear. Let's see how this goes!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13721
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus Launches A321XLR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:45 am

LSZH34 wrote:
Do we know more about the technical differences apart from the modified fuel system?
How about the landing gear? double-bogie?


If the double bogie shall make sense they would need to provide bigger wheel wells ... the quad bogie has tiny, tiny tires and breaks and would rather lower the MTOW.

And please let the racoon mask be optional....


i´d think the customer get any paintjob they like......

best regards
Thomas
Last edited by tommy1808 on Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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