• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

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

Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:21 pm

Ty134A wrote:
i have a stupid question: why not add fuel tanks under the wings like with military aircraft? or maybe come up with some cv990 style solution?.

Fuel tanks are already on the wings - so adding more will increase the weight and spoil the aerodynamics. Too expensive to redesign.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10423
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:23 pm

jagraham wrote:
The A321LR must be hand loaded as it is; the A321XLR cannot take up any more lower deck space without reducing the passenger count. .


Why? 7x LD3-45 easily take the baggage of 200 pax, let alone a probably more realistic 160-180 pax, no matter how sloppy they are packed....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
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 Dec 23, 2018 4:36 pm

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


You need a solution that finds new space for more fuel without further infringing on hold space.
i.e. find unused space around the center wingbox and/or build a tank that is (more) conformal to the fuselage X-section.
Murphy is an optimist
 
jagraham
Posts: 848
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:51 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The A321LR must be hand loaded as it is; the A321XLR cannot take up any more lower deck space without reducing the passenger count. .


Why? 7x LD3-45 easily take the baggage of 200 pax, let alone a probably more realistic 160-180 pax, no matter how sloppy they are packed....

Best regards
Thomas


Leeham covered this well . .
We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.

https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbu ... ats-there/
 
tealnz
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:18 pm

jagraham wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
WIederling wrote:

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

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


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

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

The Leeham analysis seems to answer these questions. On fuel volume, Leeham claims the integral tank in the lower lobe occupies the space of the two aft ACTs plus a void behind the gear bay, offering total capacity of 12,000l (cf 9000l for 3xACTs in the LR). There are weight savings as jagraham notes. Plus I think Leeham reported plans for a new wingtip offering a small increase in effective span, giving additional range of ~70nm.

With the integral tank occupying only the hold space of two ACTs (no forward ACT required) this means the hold space available for luggage in the XLR will be greater than the LR.
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

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

Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:07 pm

jagraham wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The A321LR must be hand loaded as it is; the A321XLR cannot take up any more lower deck space without reducing the passenger count. .


Why? 7x LD3-45 easily take the baggage of 200 pax, let alone a probably more realistic 160-180 pax, no matter how sloppy they are packed....

Best regards
Thomas


Leeham covered this well . .
We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.

https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbu ... ats-there/


from what i can tell you from my every day work is, that an a321 is never used to it's full cargo volume because of bags. the highest bag load i ever had on a bulk a321 was 297 bags, a thing i will never forget. on top, these bags were huge... and after an hour we still had space for about 100 more. but you would never ever need this space for ops in countries that actually need such an aircraft. 7 akh is more than enaught for 200 pax.
flown on: TU3,TU5,T20,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,YK4,YK2,AN2,AN4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80,M87,
AB4,AB6,318,313,342,343,345,346,712,703,722,732,735,741,742,743,74L,744,752,753,763,772,77W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,
142,143,AR8,AR1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17521
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:37 pm

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


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

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

The Leeham analysis seems to answer these questions. On fuel volume, Leeham claims the integral tank in the lower lobe occupies the space of the two aft ACTs plus a void behind the gear bay, offering total capacity of 12,000l (cf 9000l for 3xACTs in the LR). There are weight savings as jagraham notes. Plus I think Leeham reported plans for a new wingtip offering a small increase in effective span, giving additional range of ~70nm.

With the integral tank occupying only the hold space of two ACTs (no forward ACT required) this means the hold space available for luggage in the XLR will be greater than the LR.

Thanks for the update. 3,000L more fuel (basically one ACT) with a weight savings.

The ACTs are bad for unusable fuel. Going from memory, 400kg to 500kg each of unusable fuel. Any prediction on the new tanks? IMHO, that is as good as the other improvements.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12949
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:44 am

An A321 with ACT's without bulkloading seems practical when the front hold is bulk loaded. In the rear hold the ACT's are basically removeable AKH's. I have seen no info on the new fueltank . I wonder if they will look at expanding the centerbox tank capacity just in front of it. Using some of the forward hold. I guess they would retain the 1 or 2 ACT flexibility in the aft hold. At some point CG consideration come in too.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
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 Dec 24, 2018 11:17 am

If they make this XLR to the performance specs mentioned it won't ( of course) be a range issue.It will ( if B build a MOM) centre on whether 200-206 2 class pax is the sweet spot ( Airbus can't go bigger) or 220-250 pax 2 class as Boeing appear to be suggesting.
It's a very big difference indeed it's a different class of aircraft.Would there be room for both ?
 
tealnz
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:51 pm

parapente wrote:
If they make this XLR to the performance specs mentioned it won't ( of course) be a range issue.It will ( if B build a MOM) centre on whether 200-206 2 class pax is the sweet spot ( Airbus can't go bigger) or 220-250 pax 2 class as Boeing appear to be suggesting.
It's a very big difference indeed it's a different class of aircraft.Would there be room for both ?

Plenty of room for both surely. They'll have different strengths. In terms of capability they'll obviously overlap (long thin routes for ~200 pax up to ~4000nm). But the 797 will have an edge in terms of payload and range, maybe also on fuel/seat mile and for passenger experience. But even allowing for a big push on production cost Boeing won't match the A321 for price/seat. For any airline with an A320 fleet the XLR will be a cheap and low-risk way to develop new long/thin point-to-point routes. There will be more of them than we imagine.
 
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 Dec 24, 2018 5:18 pm

keesje wrote:
An A321 with ACT's without bulkloading seems practical when the front hold is bulk loaded. In the rear hold the ACT's are basically removeable AKH's. I have seen no info on the new fueltank . I wonder if they will look at expanding the centerbox tank capacity just in front of it. Using some of the forward hold. I guess they would retain the 1 or 2 ACT flexibility in the aft hold. At some point CG consideration come in too.

Image


I am reading an expansion of the centerbox tank. But the math says they have to not use ACTs at all to save the weight needed to hold even 4.5t of fuel more than the total for the A321LR and stay within 101t. Which suggests that after they reclaim any unused space in the wheel wells and the wing glove, they have to move the centerline tank bulkheads. At least 1 AKH / ACT forward and 1 AKH / ACT aft. Giving perhaps 1 AKH position free relative to the A321LR if the other posters' guesses are correct.

Note that the AKH position can't be used on a 4700 nm trip with 200 pax because of the extra weight of the containers. But once under 4400 nm probably and 4000 nm certainly, or with reduced pax count, they can go back to container loading the bags.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20625
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:42 pm

jagraham wrote:
I am reading an expansion of the centerbox tank. But the math says they have to not use ACTs at all to save the weight needed to hold even 4.5t of fuel more than the total for the A321LR and stay within 101t. Which suggests that after they reclaim any unused space in the wheel wells and the wing glove, they have to move the centerline tank bulkheads. At least 1 AKH / ACT forward and 1 AKH / ACT aft. Giving perhaps 1 AKH position free relative to the A321LR if the other posters' guesses are correct.

Note that the AKH position can't be used on a 4700 nm trip with 200 pax because of the extra weight of the containers. But once under 4400 nm probably and 4000 nm certainly, or with reduced pax count, they can go back to container loading the bags.

Earlier in this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1408445&start=100#p20867367 ) we did go through a similar exercise of trying to figure out what configuration could support the stated numbers. Any improvement in mission capabilities will be welcomed, but it does seem the 4700nm mission is going to come with a lot of restrictions.
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
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6460
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:46 pm

Ty134A wrote:
but you would never ever need this space for ops in countries that actually need such an aircraft. 7 akh is more than enaught for 200 pax.

I would like PR to get the XLR to operate their MNL-AKL sector...and see if the remaining hold space is really ample for the usual number of balikbayan boxes! :boxedin: :weightlifter: :biggrin:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:27 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
So where does the luggage go?

The A319CJ had erm... I think it was 6 ACTs if I recall correctly.

Of course, that meant you'd very little luggage space - but then the seating plan meant you'd never need that much luggage space.

This is very different.


Probably the luggage would go to the LD3-45 container. LOL.
Increase range means increased mtow and increased payload capability. Airlines that only fly 3,000nm to 3,500nm routes would be able to carry more cargo because of it.
Besides, A321 is a long plane, they carry 10 LD3-45.


Yes and with the fuel needed 4 of them go away for ACT tanks on the XLR. leaving 6 containers & bulk for pass luggage or just no LD3-45's with all bulk cargo.
 
tealnz
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
Earlier in this thread we did go through a similar exercise of trying to figure out what configuration could support the stated numbers. Any improvement in mission capabilities will be welcomed, but it does seem the 4700nm mission is going to come with a lot of restrictions.

Baggage space should be a non-issue (the XLR will take five containers in the forward hold and three aft). 4700nm will be brochure range so we must be looking at real-world ranges of ~4000nm after factoring in weather and airways. Normal long-haul configuration on the 757 and A321 seems to be around 180 pax two-class so expect similar for the XLR.

Dunno about "lot of restrictions" For pretty much any airframe real-world pax and range come out well below brochure numbers. The point of the XLR is that it gains ~700nm effective range over the LR. That must open up some interesting new possibilities for eg trans-Atlantic to/from inland USA or eastern Europe.
 
IKELAELA1
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:53 pm

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:44 pm

Sounds great but sucks for people with disability's traveling from Hawaii to Mainland US, because they have no handicap lavatory
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12949
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
jagraham wrote:
I am reading an expansion of the centerbox tank. But the math says they have to not use ACTs at all to save the weight needed to hold even 4.5t of fuel more than the total for the A321LR and stay within 101t. Which suggests that after they reclaim any unused space in the wheel wells and the wing glove, they have to move the centerline tank bulkheads. At least 1 AKH / ACT forward and 1 AKH / ACT aft. Giving perhaps 1 AKH position free relative to the A321LR if the other posters' guesses are correct.

Note that the AKH position can't be used on a 4700 nm trip with 200 pax because of the extra weight of the containers. But once under 4400 nm probably and 4000 nm certainly, or with reduced pax count, they can go back to container loading the bags.

Earlier in this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1408445&start=100#p20867367 ) we did go through a similar exercise of trying to figure out what configuration could support the stated numbers. Any improvement in mission capabilities will be welcomed, but it does seem the 4700nm mission is going to come with a lot of restrictions.


The LR aft deck has a cargo load system for the ACT's. An AKH or KPC+net weighs 65-85 kg, so significant, but not huge. And has big advantages for most airlines.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:39 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Ty134A wrote:
but you would never ever need this space for ops in countries that actually need such an aircraft. 7 akh is more than enaught for 200 pax.

I would like PR to get the XLR to operate their MNL-AKL sector...and see if the remaining hold space is really ample for the usual number of balikbayan boxes! :boxedin: :weightlifter: :biggrin:


Actually the XLR would use another ACT, so only 6 LD3-45's & bulk, not 7.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12949
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:47 pm

IKELAELA1 wrote:
Sounds great but sucks for people with disability's traveling from Hawaii to Mainland US, because they have no handicap lavatory


It seems there are some options.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tealnz
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:07 am

rbavfan wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
Actually the XLR would use another ACT, so only 6 LD3-45's & bulk, not 7.

How do you arrive at that? A regular 321 has space for five ACTs/LD3-45s forward and five aft. The standard LR uses two spaces aft and two (for a single ACT) forward. The XLR will use just two spaces aft for the new integrated belly tank, leaving space for up to five + three LD3-45s plus bulk hold for luggage. Unless I've missed something the 4700nm range now being publicised uses just the wing and centre tank plus the new 12,000l integrated belly tank.
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:40 am

rbavfan wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
So where does the luggage go?

The A319CJ had erm... I think it was 6 ACTs if I recall correctly.

Of course, that meant you'd very little luggage space - but then the seating plan meant you'd never need that much luggage space.

This is very different.


Probably the luggage would go to the LD3-45 container. LOL.
Increase range means increased mtow and increased payload capability. Airlines that only fly 3,000nm to 3,500nm routes would be able to carry more cargo because of it.
Besides, A321 is a long plane, they carry 10 LD3-45.


Yes and with the fuel needed 4 of them go away for ACT tanks on the XLR. leaving 6 containers & bulk for pass luggage or just no LD3-45's with all bulk cargo.


Well in those long flights, they wouldn't be carrying much revenue cargo anyway. And the seat count would be on the lower side. Although, did they specified that they gonna trade in 4 LD3-45 for the xtra fuel tanks. That's 4 whole modules.
 
tealnz
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:50 am

Not quite. A regular ACT holds 3000l. The standard LR carries two aft and one forward for 9000l total.

All the info we're seeing on the XLR is that the new belly tank will hold the equivalent of four ACTs ie 12,000l using a void behind the gear bay bulkhead plus space currently occupied by two ACTs (including space between the ACTs and the fuselage skin and cabin floor). So we're still left with spaces for 5+3 ACTs – though I'm sure you're right that they won't be carrying much apart from luggage on longer routes.
 
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 Dec 25, 2018 1:04 am

IKELAELA1 wrote:
Sounds great but sucks for people with disability's traveling from Hawaii to Mainland US, because they have no handicap lavatory

?? does not compute ??
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:40 am

keesje wrote:
IKELAELA1 wrote:
Sounds great but sucks for people with disability's traveling from Hawaii to Mainland US, because they have no handicap lavatory


It seems there are some options.

Image


That option of just 2 and a half carts for a 5+ hour flight is rather unreasonable for most airlines. Perhaps that works for a single class airline that also uses the front galley for economy and has no hot food. Double the space would be needed for 2 class airlines.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20625
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:18 pm

tealnz wrote:
Not quite. A regular ACT holds 3000l. The standard LR carries two aft and one forward for 9000l total.

All the info we're seeing on the XLR is that the new belly tank will hold the equivalent of four ACTs ie 12,000l using a void behind the gear bay bulkhead plus space currently occupied by two ACTs (including space between the ACTs and the fuselage skin and cabin floor). So we're still left with spaces for 5+3 ACTs – though I'm sure you're right that they won't be carrying much apart from luggage on longer routes.

The info we had from Leeham was there was around 2/3rds of an ACT's worth of available space in the unused voids. I'm not sure how we get from that number to now having the ability to use two more ACT locations to get four ACTs worth of fuel. We had a picture in this thread of the remaining space with ACTs inserted and it's not very large.
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
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12949
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:21 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
IKELAELA1 wrote:
Sounds great but sucks for people with diisability's traveling from Hawaii to Mainland US, because they have no handicap lavatory


It seems there are some options.

Image


That option of just 2 and a half carts for a 5+ hour flight is rather unreasonable for most airlines. Perhaps that works for a single class airline that also uses the front galley for economy and has no hot food. Double the space would be needed for 2 class airlines.


You are right, significant galley space would be required to have 2 meals + some for 200 people. "Dry" galley space could be added in the space the lavatories used to be, I wonder if that would pratical though. Airlines and their crew departments will have a good look and specify the galley / lavatory configuration that suits them best. Crew want a working space seperate from the lavatories. Some 757s have mid cabin lavatories. Having curtains to seperate part of the galley as rest area might also be requirement, combined with (High Comfort Crew Rests).
"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 Dec 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
We had a picture in this thread of the remaining space with ACTs inserted and it's not very large.

The fuselage is round. The hold has the slightly enlarged profile of the LD3-45 cross section.
One would have to look at how much piping and stuff occupies the difference and can't be moved out of the way.
No idea if you can use the headroom between floorbeams too.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ration.jpg
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ection.jpg
https://external-preview.redd.it/jZCstg ... 6ccaa6eecc
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 Dec 25, 2018 2:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
We had a picture in this thread of the remaining space with ACTs inserted and it's not very large.

The fuselage is round. The hold has the slightly enlarged profile of the LD3-45 cross section.
One would have to look at how much piping and stuff occupies the difference and can't be moved out of the way.
No idea if you can use the headroom between floorbeams too.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ration.jpg
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ection.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BQQS7JD.jpg
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 Dec 25, 2018 3:26 pm

WIederling wrote:
No idea if you can use the headroom between floorbeams too.

LD3-45 has (inner) 3.6m³ / ( outer) 3.8m³ volume
each ACT of that nominal size provides for 2.992m³ useable (fuel) volume.
( quite some space reserved for attaching plumbing? )
the lower lobe inside the frames has ~~4.2m² area. or ~~6.4m³ per LD3-45 length segment
Last edited by WIederling on Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Murphy is an optimist
 
tealnz
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:31 pm

Revelation wrote:
The info we had from Leeham was there was around 2/3rds of an ACT's worth of available space in the unused voids. I'm not sure how we get from that number to now having the ability to use two more ACT locations to get four ACTs worth of fuel. We had a picture in this thread of the remaining space with ACTs inserted and it's not very large.

Leeham last year reported that the void between the gear bay and the hold bulkhead was around 2000l – the two-thirds of an ACT. In the current configuration the two ACTs are worth 6000l. The remaining 4000l will have to come from removing the two ACTs and their plumbing, removing the CLS and from filling the gaps between, beside and above the ACTs. You end up with a single integral tank running from the gear bay back to where the second ACT currently ends.

We have now seen several reports sourced from airlines who have been talking to Airbus. They seem confident Airbus can deliver the extra tankage and range. It all sounds internally consistent.
 
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 Dec 25, 2018 3:35 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
jagraham wrote:
I am reading an expansion of the centerbox tank. But the math says they have to not use ACTs at all to save the weight needed to hold even 4.5t of fuel more than the total for the A321LR and stay within 101t. Which suggests that after they reclaim any unused space in the wheel wells and the wing glove, they have to move the centerline tank bulkheads. At least 1 AKH / ACT forward and 1 AKH / ACT aft. Giving perhaps 1 AKH position free relative to the A321LR if the other posters' guesses are correct.

Note that the AKH position can't be used on a 4700 nm trip with 200 pax because of the extra weight of the containers. But once under 4400 nm probably and 4000 nm certainly, or with reduced pax count, they can go back to container loading the bags.

Earlier in this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1408445&start=100#p20867367 ) we did go through a similar exercise of trying to figure out what configuration could support the stated numbers. Any improvement in mission capabilities will be welcomed, but it does seem the 4700nm mission is going to come with a lot of restrictions.


The LR aft deck has a cargo load system for the ACT's. An AKH or KPC+net weighs 65-85 kg, so significant, but not huge. And has big advantages for most airlines.


The entire 4t MTOW increase is going straight to fuel. And then some. Which is why Airbus would say 4700nm instead of 4800 nm. Every kg is significant under those circumstances.

The real question is whether Leeham's estimate of 9 AKH for 200 pax's bags or 7 AKH that some other posters suggested is correct? Because the A321XLR appears to be able to carry 7 AKH even at 4700 nm . .
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20625
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:57 pm

tealnz wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The info we had from Leeham was there was around 2/3rds of an ACT's worth of available space in the unused voids. I'm not sure how we get from that number to now having the ability to use two more ACT locations to get four ACTs worth of fuel. We had a picture in this thread of the remaining space with ACTs inserted and it's not very large.

Leeham last year reported that the void between the gear bay and the hold bulkhead was around 2000l – the two-thirds of an ACT. In the current configuration the two ACTs are worth 6000l. The remaining 4000l will have to come from removing the two ACTs and their plumbing, removing the CLS and from filling the gaps between, beside and above the ACTs. You end up with a single integral tank running from the gear bay back to where the second ACT currently ends.

We have now seen several reports sourced from airlines who have been talking to Airbus. They seem confident Airbus can deliver the extra tankage and range. It all sounds internally consistent.

I do find it very interesting, In essence we're saying we need 1+1/3rd of an ACT's volume to come from the various wastage in the area the 2 ACTs occupy, which seems optimistic. Yet I agree all we have been hearing is optimistic noises, so it should be very interesting to learn the official numbers, presuming the proposal does go on offer.

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
We had a picture in this thread of the remaining space with ACTs inserted and it's not very large.

The fuselage is round. The hold has the slightly enlarged profile of the LD3-45 cross section.
One would have to look at how much piping and stuff occupies the difference and can't be moved out of the way.
No idea if you can use the headroom between floorbeams too.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ration.jpg
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ection.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BQQS7JD.jpg

Yet we need to find 2/3rds useable fuel volume increase (i.e. 1+1/3 increase for 2 ACT areas so 2/3rds per ACT area) and it's hard to visualize it:

Image
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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 5:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
Yet we need to find 2/3rds useable fuel volume increase (i.e. 1+1/3 increase for 2 ACT areas so 2/3rds per ACT area) and it's hard to visualize it:
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ection.jpg

See my post #280.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6460
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 6:50 pm

tealnz wrote:
How do you arrive at that? A regular 321 has space for five ACTs/LD3-45s forward and five aft. The standard LR uses two spaces aft and two (for a single ACT) forward. The XLR will use just two spaces aft for the new integrated belly tank, leaving space for up to five + three LD3-45s plus bulk hold for luggage. Unless I've missed something the 4700nm range now being publicised uses just the wing and centre tank plus the new 12,000l integrated belly tank.

The quote makes it look like the comment was mine. Actually, what I am more concerned about is the reduction in XLR brochure range airways and prevailing winds would have over that predominantly north-south track (disregarding any diversions brought about by the volcanic eruption in Indonesia) -- if same would require a further decrease in seatcount below 200 pax or payload limits --- to cover the 4,326 nm GC distance.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MNL-AKL&MS=wls&DU=nm[/quote]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
tealnz
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:03 pm

Devilfish wrote:
tealnz wrote:
How do you arrive at that? A regular 321 has space for five ACTs/LD3-45s forward and five aft. The standard LR uses two spaces aft and two (for a single ACT) forward. The XLR will use just two spaces aft for the new integrated belly tank, leaving space for up to five + three LD3-45s plus bulk hold for luggage. Unless I've missed something the 4700nm range now being publicised uses just the wing and centre tank plus the new 12,000l integrated belly tank.

The quote makes it look like the comment was mine. Actually, what I am more concerned about is the reduction in XLR brochure range airways and prevailing winds would have over that predominantly north-south track (disregarding any diversions brought about by the volcanic eruption in Indonesia) -- if same would require a further decrease in seatcount below 200 pax or payload limits --- to cover the 4,326 nm GC distance.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MNL-AKL&MS=wls&DU=nm

Sorry mate, I garbled the quote, my mistake. I was trying to reply to rbavfan's point.

The MNL-AKL question is an interesting one. I assume the 4700nm is brochure range with 206 pax so you'd have to trim it to reflect wind and airways, plus cabin and catering usually end up higher than brochure assumptions. 180pax seems pretty typical for A321s used on long haul so that saves you two tonnes on the brochure number. But I guess there would still have to be a question about doing MNL-AKL reliably, especially with lack of diversion options on the Tasman crossing.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17521
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:18 am

Revelation wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The info we had from Leeham was there was around 2/3rds of an ACT's worth of available space in the unused voids. I'm not sure how we get from that number to now having the ability to use two more ACT locations to get four ACTs worth of fuel. We had a picture in this thread of the remaining space with ACTs inserted and it's not very large.

Leeham last year reported that the void between the gear bay and the hold bulkhead was around 2000l – the two-thirds of an ACT. In the current configuration the two ACTs are worth 6000l. The remaining 4000l will have to come from removing the two ACTs and their plumbing, removing the CLS and from filling the gaps between, beside and above the ACTs. You end up with a single integral tank running from the gear bay back to where the second ACT currently ends.

We have now seen several reports sourced from airlines who have been talking to Airbus. They seem confident Airbus can deliver the extra tankage and range. It all sounds internally consistent.

I do find it very interesting, In essence we're saying we need 1+1/3rd of an ACT's volume to come from the various wastage in the area the 2 ACTs occupy, which seems optimistic. Yet I agree all we have been hearing is optimistic noises, so it should be very interesting to learn the official numbers, presuming the proposal does go on offer.

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
We had a picture in this thread of the remaining space with ACTs inserted and it's not very large.

The fuselage is round. The hold has the slightly enlarged profile of the LD3-45 cross section.
One would have to look at how much piping and stuff occupies the difference and can't be moved out of the way.
No idea if you can use the headroom between floorbeams too.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ration.jpg
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ection.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BQQS7JD.jpg

Yet we need to find 2/3rds useable fuel volume increase (i.e. 1+1/3 increase for 2 ACT areas so 2/3rds per ACT area) and it's hard to visualize it:

Image

The space includes the flowing:
1. Tank height increased due to not having to roll in and out.
2. Eliminating the axial walls. Since they have light abuse resistance, that takes thickness.
3. The side nooks.
4. There was talk of using volume around the gear Wells.

Plus, this will be lighter. :)

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12949
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:44 am

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Leeham last year reported that the void between the gear bay and the hold bulkhead was around 2000l – the two-thirds of an ACT. In the current configuration the two ACTs are worth 6000l. The remaining 4000l will have to come from removing the two ACTs and their plumbing, removing the CLS and from filling the gaps between, beside and above the ACTs. You end up with a single integral tank running from the gear bay back to where the second ACT currently ends.

We have now seen several reports sourced from airlines who have been talking to Airbus. They seem confident Airbus can deliver the extra tankage and range. It all sounds internally consistent.

I do find it very interesting, In essence we're saying we need 1+1/3rd of an ACT's volume to come from the various wastage in the area the 2 ACTs occupy, which seems optimistic. Yet I agree all we have been hearing is optimistic noises, so it should be very interesting to learn the official numbers, presuming the proposal does go on offer.

WIederling wrote:
The fuselage is round. The hold has the slightly enlarged profile of the LD3-45 cross section.
One would have to look at how much piping and stuff occupies the difference and can't be moved out of the way.
No idea if you can use the headroom between floorbeams too.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ration.jpg
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869949/1 ... ection.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BQQS7JD.jpg

Yet we need to find 2/3rds useable fuel volume increase (i.e. 1+1/3 increase for 2 ACT areas so 2/3rds per ACT area) and it's hard to visualize it:

Image

The space includes the flowing:
1. Tank height increased due to not having to roll in and out.
2. Eliminating the axial walls. Since they have light abuse resistance, that takes thickness.
3. The side nooks.
4. There was talk of using volume around the gear Wells.

Plus, this will be lighter. :)

Lightsaber


Weight is always good, specially for this aircraft. A fixed tank would gain some volume too at the outer edges. The wheel well isn't an empty space with the gear retracted, contains hot brakes etc. They would need more than an additional AKH in terms of fuel for 4700NM, that is significant and I think more than can be optimized within the LR's 3 ACT enveloppe. I wondered if a small stretch (say max 1m) for this purpose, in front of the wing center tank, could solve a lot of A321XLR challenges. The two ACT's in the rear hold must have pushed CG balance back a bit already).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LDRA
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

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

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:25 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?



It is not optimal, but probably still toleratable in terms of design. It is probably pushing wing design to the max though

I just did wingload comparison out of curiosity. Appearantly at 101ton/128m^2, still lower wingload than 77W, at 351.5ton/436.8m^2
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:05 am

Yup wing loading must be approaching max but clearly can be done.But there again so must most Peramiters on the aircaft.
Max thrust available from engines,max weight on MLG ( plus max pavement loading).
But the overall effect would be a maximum efficiency aircraft and very hard to beat.Bit like a 787-10 is totally maxed out.
 
tealnz
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:20 pm

Leeham earlier the year reported Airbus were also looking at split winglets for the XLR. They wouldn’t help with lift but would make a difference to drag - I think it was reported they would deliver ~70nm in additional range.
 
LDRA
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

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

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:21 pm

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
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

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

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:48 pm

I think the single aisle is superior to a wB, but airbus would be better served by a new wing/box design. The ability to hit higher initial cruise altitudes in the mid-high 30's early on in the flight like the 757 saves a ton of fuel (literally). The A321 can barely make it out of the 20's initially at high weights.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:59 pm

The A321 isn't just an A321 anymore:

A321-100
A321-200
A321neo
A321LR
A321XLR

And then there are a myriad of varieties within each type - engines, thrust ratings, MTOW variants, wing tips, fuel tank config, cabin config, door config etc.
The flight deck is pretty much the same, besides going from CRT to LCD displays.

How much commonality is left between the variants?
 
LDRA
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

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

Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:15 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
I think the single aisle is superior to a wB, but airbus would be better served by a new wing/box design. The ability to hit higher initial cruise altitudes in the mid-high 30's early on in the flight like the 757 saves a ton of fuel (literally). The A321 can barely make it out of the 20's initially at high weights.


Depends on engine. I am assuming the higher pressure ratio from Neo engines helps initial climb performance at high gross weight versus Ceo
 
LDRA
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

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

Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:26 pm

I am looking at the A321NEO AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS document

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/techdata/aircraft_characteristics/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A321.pdf

On page 70, it shows forward ACT occupies two LD3-5 slots. Is this for CG control or other reason? XLR integral belly tank should free up two LD3-45 slots while providing 4 x ACT amount of fuel
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20625
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:19 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
How much commonality is left between the variants?

Plenty, when it comes to crew training and line maintenance.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:46 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
The A321 isn't just an A321 anymore:

A321-100
A321-200
A321neo
A321LR
A321XLR

And then there are a myriad of varieties within each type - engines, thrust ratings, MTOW variants, wing tips, fuel tank config, cabin config, door config etc.
The flight deck is pretty much the same, besides going from CRT to LCD displays.

How much commonality is left between the variants?


The A321 differences are primarily weight and engines. MTOW differences are common without suffixes. The A321LR is only a 3% MTOW increase and the A321XLR is 7%. Historically such increases would never have resulted in LR and XLR branding, but Airbus is marketing the differences quite heavily. For comparison the 777-200ER was a 20% MTOW increase from the 777-200 and the 777-200LR was a 38% MTOW increase with new engines. The 767-300ER was a re-engine and 18% MTOW increase from the baseline 767-300. The 767-300 to 767-300ER was a more significant change than the A321 NEO and XLR changes combined.

Similarly cabin configuration options have been around for a while, but Airbus marketing is using terms like SpaceFlex to advertise the differences.

Thrust rating differences exist on almost every airplane. Airlines choose MTOW and thrust rating options. Lower MTOW and thrust usually costs less. Airbus charges more for increased capabilty since it can generate more revenue and heavier weight versions cost more to develop and certify.

I see the A321 as no different from other planes as far as commonality goes. Airbus is creating options to widen its appeal to airlines, which is a good thing. If Airbus starts changing the pneumatic, air conditioning, electrical, hydraulic, flight control systems, etc them it would have an impact on operations. The customization they are offering is good for the airlines, but bad for lessors since it makes airplanes less interchangeable between airlines.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12949
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:34 pm

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20625
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:40 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.

Yes. Too bad A220 has so little commonality with the rest of their product line, it used to be a benefit many appreciated.
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
 
StTim
Posts: 3358
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.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 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