• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:09 pm

LH707330 wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people at Boeing who have considered an MTOW/range bump on the 321 like this one, so I doubt many of them were surprised to read this FG article..


You sure they are not lingering in "just catching up" bliss? :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:11 pm

LH707330 wrote:
Ultimately, they've got to decide if they think the remaining range and payload spread between this proposal and the 788 is worth filling. One thing that may be influencing their calculus in a big way is the commonality increases that they did for AA on the 788: now that they're making it more like the 789, they can take advantage of some of those economies of scale, which drives down cost, and makes the 797 business case harder to close if a 788 isn't much more expensive

Ultimately, the 788 is a much bigger plane than the 797, with twice the range and two more pax in every row of Y.

788 really isn't its competition, a potential A321 derivative is.

We see that A321XLR is having problem finding room for a full set of fuel, pax and bags, mainly due to a wing that doesn't even tank as much fuel as the 737 wing.

An A321 with a CFRP folding wingtip wing and appropriately sized engines will be much more of a challenge than 788 is.

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
 
tomcat
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:25 pm

Revelation wrote:

We see that A321XLR is having problem finding room for a full set of fuel, pax and bags, mainly due to a wing that doesn't even tank as much fuel as the 737 wing.



I have a different perception, or let's say that the jury is still out regarding the potential of the XLR. Rather than considering that the "A321XLR is having problem finding room for a full set of fuel, pax and bags", I would rather consider that Airbus is simply asking the market if it would have any use of the XLR as proposed today. Airbus has obviously found a way to stuff more fuel in this aircraft while preserving enough payload to make it worth presenting it to the market. Even if the the market reaction would just be barely positive, it would be a testament to the potential of the basic A321 design. Who would have thought that it could have been developed that far from its original capabilities?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:42 pm

tomcat wrote:
Revelation wrote:
We see that A321XLR is having problem finding room for a full set of fuel, pax and bags, mainly due to a wing that doesn't even tank as much fuel as the 737 wing.

I have a different perception, or let's say that the jury is still out regarding the potential of the XLR. Rather than considering that the "A321XLR is having problem finding room for a full set of fuel, pax and bags", I would rather consider that Airbus is simply asking the market if it would have any use of the XLR as proposed today. Airbus has obviously found a way to stuff more fuel in this aircraft while preserving enough payload to make it worth presenting it to the market. Even if the the market reaction would just be barely positive, it would be a testament to the potential of the basic A321 design. Who would have thought that it could have been developed that far from its original capabilities?

Yes, the longevity and scalability of the A320 design is marvelous.

Yet I think they are doing more than simply asking the market what they want.

I think they are spending real euros trying to figure out the most fuel they can stick into underutilized space without having to spend even more money stretching the frame or building new wings, and they will probably produce a very useful improvement.

In the end, however, they will have to do more to compete with NMA, presuming that the NMA program does get launched.
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
 
tealnz
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:52 pm

Revelation wrote:
jagraham wrote:
[/img]
flipdewaf wrote:
Seems to me that to get 4700nm out of the A321NEO needs about 101.5tMTOW, maybe a bit less if the weight of ACTs is negated somewhat.

Asking the question slightly differently, and assuming no increase in thrust and the reworked center box holds the equivalent of 4 ACTs while taking the space of 2 ACTs (saving 1 ACT of space, and 2.5 ACTs of weight), how many pax and bags (at 95 kg) can be carried 4700 nm ESAD?

It's not clear how much gain there is to be had.

Earlier I've posted a quote from our previous thread:

tealnz wrote:
Just spotted a piece on Leeham from a year ago that offers another clue to how they might do it. Fehrm refers to space between the main landing gear bay and the rear cargo compartment worth two-thirds of an ACT which should be about two tonnes. Presumably there's still more available from replacing ACTs with an integrated tank using the full hold volume back to the cargo door.

Given Ferpe's reputation I think it's safe to say we are talking about adding 2/3rds of an ACT's worth of fuel via creative reuse of existing space, rather than 2.

This picture:

Image

shows that there is already a center tank on A321 which I think we can presume is pretty close to optimal in its use of space.

This thread's article hasn't made it clear if Airbus will be replacing one or two ACTs on the A321XLR with a permanent tank.

I don't think they will go for more that two ACTs, since more would reduce the flexibility of the plane too much (IMHO) and also I don't think many (if any) operators ever go beyond 2 ACTs anyway.

However (see below) perhaps they are going with 3 ACTs to provide as much gain in range as possible.

And you won't be losing all the weight of the ACTs since you need to add one permanent bulkhead, sealant, plumbing, etc.

So I think it's a bit premature to speculate, but I'd say its closer to getting 3 ACTs worth of benefit (more fuel, less weight) in the space of 2 ACTs, rather than the suggested 4 ACTs in the space of 2 ACTs.

Doing the math, that means getting another 2.4t/23.3t = 10% more fuel into the same volume.

However Airbus is suggesting a gain in range of 4700nm/4000nm = 17.5% so maybe I am being too conservative, or maybe they are going with 3 ACTs rather than 2.

Things have moved on since the Leeham piece I quoted from a year ago. There was a further piece from Fehrm, I think in August, that seemed to explain how the XLR would be configured.

Consistent with the Leeham report a year ago, the new configuration would combine a) a void between the undercarriage bay and the current forward hold bulk head (which, going by last year's report, would be worth worth 2000l) with b) the space currently occupied by two ACTs, plumbing and CLS to form a single integrated tank holding (in total from memory) around 12,000l (in comparison with the 9000l capacity of three ACTs). By taking out the ACTs, their plumbing and the CLS in that part of the hold there would be significant improvements in OEW by comparison with the LR, limiting the need for MTOW increase and structural work to handle the additional fuel. There was also a suggestion of a wing tweak.

Seems to me this now gives us an explanation of the engineering that is consistent with what has been said publicly by airlines and by Airbus themselves about potential range of an XLR and how it would be achieved.
 
Swadian
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:49 pm

The A321 is a great plane, but why is this news? The DC-8-62 could carry just as many passengers 5200 nm (SFO-HND range) instead of just 4700 nm. The DC-8-63 is "long and thin" with exit limit 259 and still had 4000 nm range. You may have beaten 1960s tech in efficiency, but give me the news when you beat 1960s tech in performance. Putting twin large GTFs on the DC-8 would outperform any narrowbody in production today; the later DC-8s only had 4x PW JT3D with 18,000 lb thrust each (72,000 lb total thrust).
John Wang, Founder and President of Inland Streamliner.
 
o0OOO0oChris
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 10:27 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:59 pm

Swadian wrote:
You may have beaten 1960s tech in efficiency, but give me the news when you beat 1960s tech in performance. Putting twin large GTFs on the DC-8 would outperform any narrowbody in production today; the later DC-8s only had 4x PW JT3D with 18,000 lb thrust each (72,000 lb total thrust).

Just looked up Wiki: MTOW: 168T. The DC8 ist 68% heavier than the proposed XLR. No way a DC8-NG will come anywhere close to the xlr efficiency/CASM.
 
NYCSKYGUY
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:12 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:11 pm

Swadian wrote:
The A321 is a great plane, but why is this news? The DC-8-62 could carry just as many passengers 5200 nm (SFO-HND range) instead of just 4700 nm. The DC-8-63 is "long and thin" with exit limit 259 and still had 4000 nm range. You may have beaten 1960s tech in efficiency, but give me the news when you beat 1960s tech in performance. Putting twin large GTFs on the DC-8 would outperform any narrowbody in production today; the later DC-8s only had 4x PW JT3D with 18,000 lb thrust each (72,000 lb total thrust).


The DC-8 was a great aircraft (as were many aircraft of that generation) but no way does it match the efficiency of today's jetliners. The DC-8's of that generation were most likely burning close to double the fuel as this 321-LR does. To make a DC-8 a twin doesn't necessarily solve the problem. It would still require 40k lb + engines. The modern version of that aircraft already existed and is now being overshadowed, I'm talking about the 757. The 321LR is basically a third generation of long range narrow body.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9506
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:51 pm

Swadian wrote:
The A321 is a great plane, but why is this news? The DC-8-62 could carry just as many passengers 5200 nm (SFO-HND range) instead of just 4700 nm.

The A321 was designed as a 2,000nm plane. That's why.
 
6YBLUE
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:45 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:00 am

MSPNWA wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
Long and thin is still long and thin. That's the role for this airplane. And as the A321 stretches its legs, its economics must take the hit. Airbus may able to pick off some orders here and there, but the market has already told us that demand is limited for this type of airplane.


How so? With a low-risk option to add some extra routes it seems like there should be some good momentum for the plane, it's not the same as previous aircraft in the space.

The argument was more about volume/weight, not density. That's hard to argue against.


Surely something determined more by climate? I think holidaymakers will more likely choose the length of their holiday based on that as well as time off and money rather than how far they're flying. And Weight is still restricted.


Long and thin is still long and thin. It's a narrow role with difficult economics. The demand profile is very narrow. If demand is sufficiently greater, a widebody is more economical and more flexible in a fleet. If the demand falls only slightly below optimum, the economics quickly deteriorate. The A321XLR may fly farther, but it has to burn more fuel to do it. There's not going to be a direct ratio of increased revenue simply because an airplane is flying 700nm farther, meaning a tightening of the already thin A321ULR margins. It's a narrow market to spend millions of dollars on. If a carrier has the A320 family, then I can see some sprinkling in a few here and there. As we've seen so far with the ULR, demand is tepid.

A length of stay is affected by how far away a destination is. Not many people are taking a long weekend trip for fun between the US and Europe. On the other hand, you might if the destination is a shorter flight away. That's the dynamic at play. I don't know anyone who doesn't take distance into account for the length (and subsequent weight) of their trip. I don't think it's a large factor here, but it is in play when you have limited cargo capability. Of course the airline can impose restrictions, but that also reduces the revenue potential.


Not sure I get your point. The XLR is a fantastic development and a step in the right direction. In reality, the majority of passengers don't really pick the airplane. They pick price, schedule then service. An XLR with 180 seats operating an 8hr sector costs less than any 757 and a heck of a lot less than the 787. As far as revenue is concerned, not all operators are cargo focused i.e low cost and some premium operators just need added frequency. At this rate when all is said and done the 797 edge (from a pax perspective) will be the dual aisle comfort. My point is the XLR is a no brainer and an excellent alternative to Boeing for many airlines who do not have or want widebody aircraft which seems to be the trend. No matter how many holes we poke the 320x investment is worth it and would be a fatal error if they didn't.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

A322 version of A321XLR, trading range for capacity

Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:00 am

I think it is an interesting business case.

Because there are so many opportunities but even more challenges.

Possibly it starts with simply adding another ACT & restrict seat count to e.g. 175.

On the other side there is a new wing / sub series. But that needs far more time & investment. Time possibly the biggest issue..

Apparently Airbus is going for the more conservative / low risk / short term approach for now.

Counting on commonality, time to market & price to compensate operational short comings. (ideally the LR should be 15% bigger, fly further, faster & carry more). https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1369195

A bonus of a 4700Nm A321XLR could be a (same MTOW) A322NEO: 240-260 seater, L ~49m, trading range for capacity.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:20 am

Carlos01 wrote:
But seriously people, more and more weight, and still the same wing? That can't be ideal anymore, especially if they want to get maximum range out of that thing, then the fuel burn should be a top priority. No?

Everything in engineering is a compromise. A better wing would help but for now the existing wing will do.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:22 pm

Swadian wrote:
The A321 is a great plane, but why is this news? The DC-8-62 could carry just as many passengers 5200 nm (SFO-HND range) instead of just 4700 nm.

Look up how much fuel can be stored in a DC-8 wing vs an A321 wing and get back to us.

Extra credit: Look up 707 as well.
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: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:34 pm

airbazar wrote:
Swadian wrote:
The A321 is a great plane, but why is this news? The DC-8-62 could carry just as many passengers 5200 nm (SFO-HND range) instead of just 4700 nm.

The A321 was designed as a 2,000nm plane. That's why.


full tanks and remaining payload:
33kl allows 21.5t payload
vs 92kl allows 13.5t payload

things have moved on.
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:39 pm

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.
 
NYCSKYGUY
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:12 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:53 pm

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.


Could Airbus with a re-winged A321 basically be using it as a stop gap measure till they create their real 320 replacement. They know they'll get some orders but ultimately they'll cede the market for a much smaller investment (a wing vs an entire aircraft). They spend 20% the money and end up with 1/4-1/3 the market until their next big thing comes along.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:55 pm

As stated above if Airbus do decide to create the higher mtow XLR then it does offer the opportunity to produce a shorter ranged stretched A322.In exactly the way the 7810 was created from the 789.It would be 'simply' trading range for seating.The new door/exit arrangement allows for up to 250 pax.This can of course be in any combination of seat classes required.But it can't be more than 250 without further major changes.If such an aircaft can operate transcontinental ranges within whatever the new mtow might be then could be quite a tasty aircraft.But one thing at a time! Yes they have taken options on the XLR but they have stressed they are not yet ready to commit.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:13 pm

parapente wrote:
As stated above if Airbus do decide to create the higher mtow XLR then it does offer the opportunity to produce a shorter ranged stretched A322.In exactly the way the 7810 was created from the 789.It would be 'simply' trading range for seating.The new door/exit arrangement allows for up to 250 pax.This can of course be in any combination of seat classes required.But it can't be more than 250 without further major changes.If such an aircaft can operate transcontinental ranges within whatever the new mtow might be then could be quite a tasty aircraft.But one thing at a time! Yes they have taken options on the XLR but they have stressed they are not yet ready to commit.


Agree, but it seems likely two versions would be launched at the same time if they share the same technology. Many airlines would prefer one or the other, or a combination of both, like other aircraft types in the past. having a growth version available It might be vital in closing the business case. I currently see it as an Operational Weak Spot of the Airbus A321NEO/LR.

Image

Arkia would probably love to have 4-5 additional seat rows as a future option to expand.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:36 pm

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)
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:26 pm

Imho a 'simple' stretched A321XLR (322) is of course the 'plus' concept (not to be confused with the very much more ambitious 'plus plus').Now they have said both are on the back burner -but who knows.However as always in aircaft planning one move can very much effect another decision further down the line.A fair example could indeed be the decision to 'MAX' as opposed to NSA which has led to the need for an additional MOM type aircraft.
In Airbus' case a continental ranged 322 might leave a nice gap for a midranged 330 replacement further down the line.How far away that may be depends entirely on the future success of the 330neo family.Early days.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:28 pm

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.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:10 pm

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.


It is simple and the only explanation.

We agree that the 737 is lighter, that was one of my premises. So we do not need a list of why the 737 is lighter.
The 737 has a narrower fuselage, the next premises.
To show a fuel burn advantage Boeing has to go for a comparison for short distances, where the lower weight of the 737 makes an impact. Often discussed here on A.net, look it up.
Several discussions here on A.net, with direct comparisons, have shown, that the A320 family compares better as the distances get longer.
If you can give me a different rational explanation, how the heavier frame, with a wider fuselage, still compares well in fuel burn without having other aerodynamic advantages, be free to name it, if you do not believe it to be the wings.

Furthermore, I was comparing the A320ceo family with the 737NG family, to have a broad comparison.

You start talking about the MAX in your confused post. I call it confused, because you start talking desperately about other things instead to the point.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:16 pm

mjoelnir 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.


It is simple and the only explanation.

We agree that the 737 is lighter, that was one of my premises. So we do not need a list of why the 737 is lighter.
The 737 has a narrower fuselage, the next premises.
To show a fuel burn advantage Boeing has to go for a comparison for short distances, where the lower weight of the 737 makes an impact. Often discussed here on A.net, look it up.
Several discussions here on A.net, with direct comparisons, have shown, that the A320 family compares better as the distances get longer.
If you can give me a different rational explanation, how the heavier frame, with a wider fuselage, still compares well in fuel burn without having other aerodynamic advantages, be free to name it, if you do not believe it to be the wings.

Furthermore, I was comparing the A320ceo family with the 737NG family, to have a broad comparison.

You start talking about the MAX in your confused post. I call it confused, because you start talking desperately about other things instead to the point.


The airframes (weight) and engines are optimized differently. The wings aren’t the only difference so your theory is far too oversimplified, but nice try playing armchair Chief Engineer.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:32 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

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.


It is simple and the only explanation.

We agree that the 737 is lighter, that was one of my premises. So we do not need a list of why the 737 is lighter.
The 737 has a narrower fuselage, the next premises.
To show a fuel burn advantage Boeing has to go for a comparison for short distances, where the lower weight of the 737 makes an impact. Often discussed here on A.net, look it up.
Several discussions here on A.net, with direct comparisons, have shown, that the A320 family compares better as the distances get longer.
If you can give me a different rational explanation, how the heavier frame, with a wider fuselage, still compares well in fuel burn without having other aerodynamic advantages, be free to name it, if you do not believe it to be the wings.

Furthermore, I was comparing the A320ceo family with the 737NG family, to have a broad comparison.

You start talking about the MAX in your confused post. I call it confused, because you start talking desperately about other things instead to the point.


The airframes (weight) and engines are optimized differently. The wings aren’t the only difference so your theory is far too oversimplified, but nice try playing armchair Chief Engineer.


Exactly the airframes are differently optimized, one is lighter and has a narrower fuselage and the other has better aerodynamics and as there is less room for aerodynamic improvements on the fuselage, it has to be the wings. You seem to try to negate the laws of physics.
Regarding the engines, the 737NG operating on a newer iteration of the CFM56 the -7 series, than the -5B for the Airbus, so I hardly believe that engines give the A320 a step up.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:35 pm

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.


I agree with general tendency of your post. The graph with fan diameter optimum was however made after the maximum diameter was determined. 68.5 inch wasn't the optimum from a sfc standpoint. But the max possible at that moment. If 75 inch or larger had been possible, it would be on the MAX.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2689
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:14 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think the fixation on TATL is misleading. For an airline like Lufthansa the an A321 with 4300nm effective range does a lot more than opening TATL routes. From FRA it opens the northern 2/3rd of Africa, the western 2/3rd of China and all of India.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4300nm%40FRA&MS=wls&DU=mi

That is a lot of routes that would be new and interesting.


Is LH even interested in operating NB's TATL? Just doesn't seem like their m.o.


Eurowings could from secondary Germany to JFK or EWR, including DUS, with some y cargo. The A343s could then go to a place with more than 4000 nmi range.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:15 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

It is simple and the only explanation.

We agree that the 737 is lighter, that was one of my premises. So we do not need a list of why the 737 is lighter.
The 737 has a narrower fuselage, the next premises.
To show a fuel burn advantage Boeing has to go for a comparison for short distances, where the lower weight of the 737 makes an impact. Often discussed here on A.net, look it up.
Several discussions here on A.net, with direct comparisons, have shown, that the A320 family compares better as the distances get longer.
If you can give me a different rational explanation, how the heavier frame, with a wider fuselage, still compares well in fuel burn without having other aerodynamic advantages, be free to name it, if you do not believe it to be the wings.

Furthermore, I was comparing the A320ceo family with the 737NG family, to have a broad comparison.

You start talking about the MAX in your confused post. I call it confused, because you start talking desperately about other things instead to the point.


The airframes (weight) and engines are optimized differently. The wings aren’t the only difference so your theory is far too oversimplified, but nice try playing armchair Chief Engineer.


Exactly the airframes are differently optimized, one is lighter and has a narrower fuselage and the other has better aerodynamics and as there is less room for aerodynamic improvements on the fuselage, it has to be the wings. You seem to try to negate the laws of physics.
Regarding the engines, the 737NG operating on a newer iteration of the CFM56 the -7 series, than the -5B for the Airbus, so I hardly believe that engines give the A320 a step up.


Do you remember the great fan diameter debate from 2012 on this website? The 737 has always had a different fan diameter than the A320. The airplanes are optimized differently. You are dramatically oversimplifying this in your theory about aerodynamic efficiency of the wing. If you want to be credible, give some actual numbers and analysis rather than glittering generalities.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:23 pm

NYCSKYGUY wrote:
Could Airbus with a re-winged A321 basically be using it as a stop gap measure till they create their real 320 replacement. They know they'll get some orders but ultimately they'll cede the market for a much smaller investment (a wing vs an entire aircraft). They spend 20% the money and end up with 1/4-1/3 the market until their next big thing comes along.


What is the real 320 replacement?

After new engines, new wing, and possibly a new landing gear, what else is so outdated that needs replacement (instead of gradual tweaking)?
Unless they will make the tube of plastics - which evidently requires some technology leap - I do not see a need for any other major replacement, given that A220 exists.
Maybe by the 30's there is some disruptive development in engine design?
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:43 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
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.


You need to heed your own advice before jumping on others.

None of this actually has anything to do with weight and/or fuel burn but the respective fuel capacities. An ng/max can carry 2000kg additional fuel over a stock 320/321. That's 45min or so of additional endurance.
Last edited by Chaostheory on Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:43 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

The airframes (weight) and engines are optimized differently. The wings aren’t the only difference so your theory is far too oversimplified, but nice try playing armchair Chief Engineer.


Exactly the airframes are differently optimized, one is lighter and has a narrower fuselage and the other has better aerodynamics and as there is less room for aerodynamic improvements on the fuselage, it has to be the wings. You seem to try to negate the laws of physics.
Regarding the engines, the 737NG operating on a newer iteration of the CFM56 the -7 series, than the -5B for the Airbus, so I hardly believe that engines give the A320 a step up.


Do you remember the great fan diameter debate from 2012 on this website? The 737 has always had a different fan diameter than the A320. The airplanes are optimized differently. You are dramatically oversimplifying this in your theory about aerodynamic efficiency of the wing. If you want to be credible, give some actual numbers and analysis rather than glittering generalities.


Newbiepilot, Boeing determined and explained 68.5 inch as the best compromise between everything relevant, as you re-published in the slide. And then found another inch and quietly added it.. what is credible here? Were you objective and critical when Boeing told you a bigger fan would mainly add weight and drag?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_LEAP
Last edited by keesje on Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
musman9853
Posts: 710
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:44 pm

reidar76 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Obviously an A321XLR will benefit some situations and capture some market share. But it's not going to wipe out the 797 by itself . . make life a little harder, perhaps.

I am assuming that Airbus worked the numbers and has figured out how to get the extra 3 to 5 tons of fuel over an A321LR or they wouldn't be suggesting it . . but to me it looks like an A322 and a new wing works better for the stated goal.


The A322 is definitely going to need updated wing. Most likely the next A32X planes will have carbon wings. That can take on the 797 head on if that were to happen. Although seeing a new A32X won't happen for a decade. The A322 would also need a new landing gear as well


Airbus will upgrade the A320 family gradually. Next is the A321 XLR, which uses the existing wing with minor structural enforcements. Within 10 years we will have a new carbon wing in production for the A320 family, a wing with foldable wing tip. Airbus is considering a wing span between 40 to 44 meters for the foldable wing.

The Guardian interviewed employees at Airbus's Filton wing design centre this summer:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... stol-wales
(Scroll past all the brexit stuff. The most interested stuff is quoted below.)

With a few clicks of a console he manipulates the image, pulling off panels and zooming in for a detailed look at the smallest components inside the wing, then pans out to reveal another intriguing new feature.

“We’re developing a folding wing tip,” he said. “On a single-aisle jet like the A320, this gives a longer wing and is more aerodynamic, but it will also fit into the airport gate when folded.”

The current wing span for an A320 is 36 metres; Airbus is considering a span of between 40 and 44 metres for the folding wing.

Mark Howard, head of research and technology business development at Airbus UK, noted that the group is introducing more automation with each aircraft programme. He also reckons the new wing will create drag improvements of 12%.

“So that’s pretty important because that means less fuel burn,” he said. “It means that you don’t need as much thrust to push it through the air, which means you can reduce engine weight. It’s a snowball effect in terms of aircraft design.”

When the future wing goes into production – which will be within the next 10 years – Airbus will have to make a huge investment to automate large parts of the manufacturing and assembly process.





remember when there were some posters here who swore they would never fly on something as unsafe as a boeing with folding wingtips? i wonder what theyre gonna do after it becomes the industry wide standard
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
leghorn
Posts: 845
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:46 pm

This 321XLR will be properly intercontinental. If the optimum range of a larger plane is beyond their range couldn't the 321XLR be used to spare the larger planes and maximise the life/lower the running costs of the larger planes already in an Airline's fleet in terms of cycles, maintenance. Couldn't the savings come not only from buying a plane which has Airbus A320 purchase and running costs but also from cutting the financing costs and running costs of the bigger beasts in the fleet.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:04 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
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.


You need to heed your own advice before jumping on others.

None of this actually has anything to do with weight and/or fuel burn but the respective fuel capacities. An ng/max can carry 2000kg additional fuel over a stock 320/321. That's 45min or so of additional endurance.


I am not the one posting theories or making claims that one airplane is more aerodynamically efficient than the other. I said both planes are great. Mjoelnir made the claim that one is more aerodynamically efficient based on some very high level generalities so he should be prepared to substantiate it when challenged.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:07 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Exactly the airframes are differently optimized, one is lighter and has a narrower fuselage and the other has better aerodynamics and as there is less room for aerodynamic improvements on the fuselage, it has to be the wings. You seem to try to negate the laws of physics.
Regarding the engines, the 737NG operating on a newer iteration of the CFM56 the -7 series, than the -5B for the Airbus, so I hardly believe that engines give the A320 a step up.


Do you remember the great fan diameter debate from 2012 on this website? The 737 has always had a different fan diameter than the A320. The airplanes are optimized differently. You are dramatically oversimplifying this in your theory about aerodynamic efficiency of the wing. If you want to be credible, give some actual numbers and analysis rather than glittering generalities.


Newbiepilot, Boeing determined and explained 68.5 inch as the best compromise between everything relevant, as you re-published in the slide. And then found another inch and quietly added it.. what is credible here? Were you objective and critical when Boeing told you a bigger fan would mainly add weight and drag?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_LEAP


When the design was refined, the constraints changed as they got further through the design process resulting in a change. That is perfectly normal in the engineering process. As constraints change, the optimized solution can change too. We dont have visibility of all the constraints, so i cant say much about a 1 inch change.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:19 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
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.


You need to heed your own advice before jumping on others.

None of this actually has anything to do with weight and/or fuel burn but the respective fuel capacities. An ng/max can carry 2000kg additional fuel over a stock 320/321. That's 45min or so of additional endurance.


I am not the one posting theories or making claims that one airplane is more aerodynamically efficient than the other. I said both planes are great. Mjoelnir made the claim that one is more aerodynamically efficient based on some very high level generalities so he should be prepared to substantiate it when challenged.


Your claim that weight differences and therefore fuel burn between the models are reason enough for longer sectors is every bit as false and unsubstantiated.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:48 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:

You need to heed your own advice before jumping on others.

None of this actually has anything to do with weight and/or fuel burn but the respective fuel capacities. An ng/max can carry 2000kg additional fuel over a stock 320/321. That's 45min or so of additional endurance.


I am not the one posting theories or making claims that one airplane is more aerodynamically efficient than the other. I said both planes are great. Mjoelnir made the claim that one is more aerodynamically efficient based on some very high level generalities so he should be prepared to substantiate it when challenged.


Your claim that weight differences and therefore fuel burn between the models are reason enough for longer sectors is every bit as false and unsubstantiated.


I didn’t say either the 737 or A320 are better for longer sectors. My point was that they are different airplanes in a variety of ways including weight and engines. That is fact and substantiated with a chart about engines constraints and optimization as well as a list of areas where the design is different resulting in the 737 having lighter components. My point is that they are optimized differently and that it is oversimplification to say the A320 wing is more aerodynamically efficient based on fuel efficiency comparisons for various stage lengths. If we look at specific parameters for the wings they are different in small ways. Why is the aspect ratio higher on the 737? Why is the MAC higher on the A320? Why is the taper ratio higher on the A320? Why is the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer bigger on the 737? What is the wing loading? These are what we should be looking at if we want to start comparing aerodynamics.

Why are you attacking me instead of Mjoelnirs simplified view on efficiency? Is it because I am not on Team Airbus?
 
jagraham
Posts: 848
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:25 pm

musman9853 wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:

The A322 is definitely going to need updated wing. Most likely the next A32X planes will have carbon wings. That can take on the 797 head on if that were to happen. Although seeing a new A32X won't happen for a decade. The A322 would also need a new landing gear as well


Airbus will upgrade the A320 family gradually. Next is the A321 XLR, which uses the existing wing with minor structural enforcements. Within 10 years we will have a new carbon wing in production for the A320 family, a wing with foldable wing tip. Airbus is considering a wing span between 40 to 44 meters for the foldable wing.

The Guardian interviewed employees at Airbus's Filton wing design centre this summer:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... stol-wales
(Scroll past all the brexit stuff. The most interested stuff is quoted below.)

With a few clicks of a console he manipulates the image, pulling off panels and zooming in for a detailed look at the smallest components inside the wing, then pans out to reveal another intriguing new feature.

“We’re developing a folding wing tip,” he said. “On a single-aisle jet like the A320, this gives a longer wing and is more aerodynamic, but it will also fit into the airport gate when folded.”

The current wing span for an A320 is 36 metres; Airbus is considering a span of between 40 and 44 metres for the folding wing.

Mark Howard, head of research and technology business development at Airbus UK, noted that the group is introducing more automation with each aircraft programme. He also reckons the new wing will create drag improvements of 12%.

“So that’s pretty important because that means less fuel burn,” he said. “It means that you don’t need as much thrust to push it through the air, which means you can reduce engine weight. It’s a snowball effect in terms of aircraft design.”

When the future wing goes into production – which will be within the next 10 years – Airbus will have to make a huge investment to automate large parts of the manufacturing and assembly process.





remember when there were some posters here who swore they would never fly on something as unsafe as a boeing with folding wingtips? i wonder what theyre gonna do after it becomes the industry wide standard

:checkeredflag: :checkeredflag: :checkeredflag:

remember some posters said "so what" about the 77x wings? That longer, higher aspect ratio wings meant nothing? When I said that the same principle applied to the 797 would allow the use of scaled up narrowbody engines (key to achieving narrowbody CASM) they said in so many words, 'no way'. But Airbus says longer wings on the A32x will "improve drag by 12%" (post 146) and the whole place cheers . .

By the way, I believe the Airbus people. I am just pointing out that it works for Boeing too, and in similar proportions.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:29 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Image

Nice graph!

It shows the ideal fan size gets larger when you optimise for longer stage lengths. It nicely explains why the A319NEO ACAP shows it burns less fuel than the A220-300 despite is being heavier.

Optimising aircraft for a certain role is actually quite complex.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:30 pm

keesje wrote:
I agree with general tendency of your post. The graph with fan diameter optimum was however made after the maximum diameter was determined. 68.5 inch wasn't the optimum from a sfc standpoint. But the max possible at that moment. If 75 inch or larger had been possible, it would be on the MAX.


The recent accident has shown that there are other selectors for fan diameter active.

A larger fan that needs even higher and further out mounting on the wing
has negative impact on stability. ( i.e. engine nacelle drag causes potentially runaway pitch up.
reason why AoA is now hard linked into Trim action. ups.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:31 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:

I didn’t say either the 737 or A320 are better for longer sectors.


As a reminder, you suggested it right here:

Newbiepilot wrote:
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.


which translates as weight difference= lower fuel burn=ability to operate longer sectors eg Alaska, Delta and tatl operators. This is blatantly false. Don't try and weasel out of it now.

I don't have any issue with people supporting one over the other just as I have no issue with people preferring baseball over cricket or rugby over aussie rules. I have issue with people peddling falsehoods.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:45 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

I didn’t say either the 737 or A320 are better for longer sectors.


As a reminder, you suggested it right here:

Newbiepilot wrote:
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.


which translates as weight difference= lower fuel burn=ability to operate longer sectors eg Alaska, Delta and tatl operators. This is blatantly false. Don't try and weasel out of it now.

I don't have any issue with people supporting one over the other just as I have no issue with people preferring baseball over cricket or rugby over aussie rules. I have issue with people peddling falsehoods.


I was countering mjoelnirs statement about efficiency over different stage lengths not saying one is better than the other
 
GalebG4
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:49 pm

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

Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:01 am

A321lr certification and series production date was 4 years later. When we will se a321xlr? 2021 seems to me a bit too late if they want to take piece of NMA market.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2342
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

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

Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:21 am

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?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
jagraham
Posts: 848
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:24 am

WIederling wrote:
keesje wrote:
I agree with general tendency of your post. The graph with fan diameter optimum was however made after the maximum diameter was determined. 68.5 inch wasn't the optimum from a sfc standpoint. But the max possible at that moment. If 75 inch or larger had been possible, it would be on the MAX.


The recent accident has shown that there are other selectors for fan diameter active.

A larger fan that needs even higher and further out mounting on the wing
has negative impact on stability. ( i.e. engine nacelle drag causes potentially runaway pitch up.
reason why AoA is now hard linked into Trim action. ups.)


There is a chain of reporting and interviews on the MAX fan size. Boeing was trading off fan size (better SFC) versus more modifications to the airframe (more weight, more cost, more delay). They settled on about 68 inches. Of course, 75 inches was possible, but only with BIG changes to the landing gear, and as a consequence, to the wings. Adding weight, adding cost. Boeing decided going to 75 inches, or 78 inches ( the size of the Airbus LEAP engine) would gain minimal benefit due to the extra weight. And then there was the extra cost, and extra time to make the greater changes.
 
jagraham
Posts: 848
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:27 am

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.
 
tealnz
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:02 am

I think Leeham had picked up a hint that Airbus were also looking at A380 Plus-style extended winglets for the XLR to increase effective span and efficiency.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:14 am

jagraham wrote:
WIederling wrote:
keesje wrote:
I agree with general tendency of your post. The graph with fan diameter optimum was however made after the maximum diameter was determined. 68.5 inch wasn't the optimum from a sfc standpoint. But the max possible at that moment. If 75 inch or larger had been possible, it would be on the MAX.


The recent accident has shown that there are other selectors for fan diameter active.

A larger fan that needs even higher and further out mounting on the wing
has negative impact on stability. ( i.e. engine nacelle drag causes potentially runaway pitch up.
reason why AoA is now hard linked into Trim action. ups.)


There is a chain of reporting and interviews on the MAX fan size. Boeing was trading off fan size (better SFC) versus more modifications to the airframe (more weight, more cost, more delay). They settled on about 68 inches. Of course, 75 inches was possible, but only with BIG changes to the landing gear, and as a consequence, to the wings. Adding weight, adding cost. Boeing decided going to 75 inches, or 78 inches ( the size of the Airbus LEAP engine) would gain minimal benefit due to the extra weight. And then there was the extra cost, and extra time to make the greater changes.


That specifically is valid for the 737. In general sfc improves with higher BPR’s everything else staying the same.
CFM confirmed this for the CFM56 -5 and -7. GE for the CF6-80C2 and E1.

For the LEAP A and B this remains an extremely touchy topic. Avoided by analysts. W’ll have to wait until an CFM engineer communicates the sfc’s in an unthoughtfull moment. And it is online long enough to intercept before CFM Marketing intervenes, because it really depends / is much more complicated. :biggrin: The 737 now have the lowest BPR’s & propulsive efficiency. Even the shorter range CS and Ejet regionals are better of.

I assume a LEAP-A of the same thrust rating and under same conditions has a 4% better sfc than the LEAP-B. But I love being proven wrong. A 737-8 having a bigger range than a A320NEO, has to do with the former’s bigger fuel tank capacity. Not fuel efficiency.

As you said 69.4 inch was the best trade off for a quick 737 upgrade, new designs use higher BPR engines for a reason.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
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 9:31 am

jagraham wrote:
And then there was the extra cost, and extra time to make the greater changes.


What you reiterate is the well known often repeated story ( from Boeing ).

I had just explained that there appears to be an additional constraint in the war on fan size.
There is invariably more to it or completely different reasoning on what Boeing tells publicly.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
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 9:42 am

jagraham wrote:
Raked wingtips are covered by Boeing patents. .


Embraers raked wingtips would speak against it.
( .. and the rudolph one has expired. the Gratzert/Boeing ones don't seem to hold water.
That field of innovations is saturated with prior art. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
YIMBY
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

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

Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:07 am

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.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

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