HP69
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:04 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:36 pm

Will AF/KLM use the A321XLR on North Am routes?
 
9Patch
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:47 pm

rigo wrote:
In these discussions about "new" narrowbody long-haul flights, everyone always seems to forget that before the 747, ALL long haul flights, transatlantic included, were flown by narrowbodies, 707s and DC8s.


But those old narrowbodies weren't very efficient and in the early days had to make a stop in Gander or Shannon to refuel.
 
9Patch
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:51 pm

PacoMartin wrote:

Boeing took B757 orders from 1978 until 2003, but 50% of them were taken after 1986 and before 1992. So the first A321 delivery in January of 1994 was outside of peak sales of B757. Deliveries for the B757 were always ahead of the A321 until the year 2001 when the program was winding down.

Basically I feel that the A321 chipped away at sales of the B757 which made it easier to end the program. The B737-900ER program never came close to beating sales of the A321.

Boeing keeps raising the stakes for the MOM before it is a profitable program. It used to talk about 2000 orders, and now it talks about 3000. The A321XLR (2762 orders already) is going to chip away at MOM sales, and Boeing is unlikely to reach 3000 sales.

I find it shocking that we have reached the point where break even sales are over 2000.


I thought 2000 - 3000 was the total number of expected sales, NOT the "break even" point.
 
rigo
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:52 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:53 pm

9Patch wrote:
rigo wrote:
In these discussions about "new" narrowbody long-haul flights, everyone always seems to forget that before the 747, ALL long haul flights, transatlantic included, were flown by narrowbodies, 707s and DC8s.


But those old narrowbodies weren't very efficient and in the early days had to make a stop in Gander or Shannon to refuel.


They weren't efficient from today's point of view, but some of the later models had longer range than even the A321XLR.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:13 am

9Patch wrote:
I thought 2000 - 3000 was the total number of expected sales, NOT the "break even" point.

It seems to me that the "break even point" is a political number and changes radically over the course of the development. As I recall the "break even point" for the A380 was 50 jets, so they didn't start the program until they had 50 orders. In a few years before deliveries began the "break even point" was more like 400 jets, but that assumed 50 deliveries a year.

When Boeing jumped the expected number of sales for MOM from 2000 to 3000, I just sort of assumed the break even point was getting closer to 2000.

When you look at orders for the B737 divided into North American sales and "Rest of the World" (ROW) sales you see that NA sales were a significant portion of sales for 36 years. After 2001 when NA sales dipped for obvious reasons the ROW sales took off through the roof.

NA ROW
502 642 ORIGINAL 1965-1987
934 1054 CLASSIC 1981-1999
1317 545 NG 1993-2001 (first 9 years)
1016 2402 NG 2002-2010 (2nd 9 years)

I don't know where the "break even point" was for the Next Generation (NG), because obviously significant changes were made to Renton facility to retire the B757 production and increase B737 production. I doubt they could have envisioned that when sales of the NG started in 1993.

Those massive number of ROW orders placed in those 9 years increased the market for a follow-on that had minimal changes from the NG. From 2002-2010 Boeing steadfastly maintained that the B737NG would be replaced with a clean sheet design, but by 2011, envious of the Airbus neo sales, Boeing changed it's corporate vision.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body LH development thread

Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:59 am

scbriml wrote:
More than any other option available, the A321XLR is a revolutionary game-changer.


I suspect it will become a revolutionary game-changer for India, Afghanistan, Khazistan and Nepal to Europe and for much of Africa to Europe.

BOM LHR 3,899 nm Mumbai to London
LHR NBO 3,687 nm London to Nairobi

These markets that were too small for wide bodies should be blown wide open in the next 20 years.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:47 am

I suspect it will be less of a revolutionary game-changer for USA and Canada. We can already reach most destinations north of the Amazon rain forest, and the A321XLR is not going to open up much of South America (although plans are in place to fly the MAX from Brasilia to Orlando). The thin routes to Europe are not materializing very fast, but I don't know if they are going to more than an incremental game-changer.

Hawaiian Airlines has already invested in 18 A321neos (4 to be delivered), and the longest flight they have announced for them is OGG to LAS (2342 nautical miles). But they might add some XLR models in the future. The longest Hawaiian Airline flight with an A330 is currently Honolulu to Boston (4425 nautical miles) .
 
User avatar
Channex737
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:05 pm

Elementalism wrote:
Channex737 wrote:
There is one thing that gets me though,
There is all this talk of the A321XLR and to a Lesser extent the LR being game changing, however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports by being able to get off a say, roughly 2000M runway and fly 8+ hours without sacrificing payload, and, I’m not convinced that these aircraft can reliably do that yet.
Would that not be a true breakthrough?



Sounds like a 757-200.


Exactly, which is what I’m getting at, there needs to be an aircraft which can match the 757, and I’m still not convinced that the 321XLR, while close will be able to replace them, the large European 757 operators (granted they are nowhere near the size of the US ones) LS, DE and BY aren’t queuing up to replace them and while the majority of these airlines routes don’t require the range, LS needs something that can make EWR from LBA and BY could operate thinner longer routes freeing up 787s. I’m still not convinced.
Farewell final CEL* 733s
STILL hasn’t managed to spot an A220 :boggled:
Recent flights: LS MAN-NCE, NCE-MAN
 
9Patch
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:33 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
9Patch wrote:
I thought 2000 - 3000 was the total number of expected sales, NOT the "break even" point.

It seems to me that the "break even point" is a political number and changes radically over the course of the development..
As I recall the "break even point" for the A380 was 50 jets, so they didn't start the program until they had 50 orders. In a few years before deliveries began the "break even point" was more like 400 jets, but that assumed 50 deliveries a year

As I recall the break even point for the A380 was initially 250 jets. It kept going up as costs increased due to the delays.
50 was the number of orders they needed to launch the program.

When Boeing jumped the expected number of sales for MOM from 2000 to 3000, I just sort of assumed the break even point was getting closer to 2000.

So you're not basing this on anything factual, it's just an assumption 'sort of.'
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2350
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:46 pm

klm617 wrote:
I find it quite interesting that we have come full circle back to planes the size of the 707 and original DC8s.


The DC-8-73 (CFM56 engines) really looks like a long-haul bird - pity they didn't fly until the LCC era started, Norwegian could have used those across the Atlantic.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:17 am

keesje wrote:
I think with it's larger fuel capacity, improved flaps and 4t MTOW bump, with the A321 XLR Airbus created the blueprint for a moderate payload for range stretch variant. More capacity (250 seats), still very usefull range and cargo capability. I assume it took experienced Boeing engineers only a second to recognize that. Those developements / investments aren't exclusively for the A321XLR.


This is what I think too. Based on the A321XLR, Airbus could stretch the aircraft by maybe 2-3 rows, while the plane could possibly still fly as far as the A321LR, enough for shorter TATL.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:17 am

Channex737 wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
Channex737 wrote:
There is one thing that gets me though,
There is all this talk of the A321XLR and to a Lesser extent the LR being game changing, however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports by being able to get off a say, roughly 2000M runway and fly 8+ hours without sacrificing payload, and, I’m not convinced that these aircraft can reliably do that yet.
Would that not be a true breakthrough?



Sounds like a 757-200.


Exactly, which is what I’m getting at, there needs to be an aircraft which can match the 757, and I’m still not convinced that the 321XLR, while close will be able to replace them, the large European 757 operators (granted they are nowhere near the size of the US ones) LS, DE and BY aren’t queuing up to replace them and while the majority of these airlines routes don’t require the range, LS needs something that can make EWR from LBA and BY could operate thinner longer routes freeing up 787s. I’m still not convinced.

And precisely due to this 757's engine is overpowered and thus being killed by A321 in terms of efficiency - it burns too much fuel in addition to the weight it carries.

You don't really have many airports that has the combination of traffic to support a non-stop TATL flight and a runway that is short enough that requires a 757 performance.

Michael
 
astuteman
Posts: 6882
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:29 am

Channex737 wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
Channex737 wrote:
There is one thing that gets me though,
There is all this talk of the A321XLR and to a Lesser extent the LR being game changing, however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports by being able to get off a say, roughly 2000M runway and fly 8+ hours without sacrificing payload, and, I’m not convinced that these aircraft can reliably do that yet.
Would that not be a true breakthrough?



Sounds like a 757-200.


there needs to be an aircraft which can match the 757.


Why? Because you say so, or because there is a business case?
In amongst the thousands of A320's and 737's, this would be an absolutely niche aircraft with no business case for the manufacturers.

And to be honest, if you really need that type of field performance from a small airport, the A220 is probably all the aircraft you need. It has plenty of range.

Rgds
 
RalXWB
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:27 am

It is sad that the same myths re 757 are repeated again and again.
Fact is, the 321 LR already matches the range of the 757 and the 321 XLR flies even farther while being 25 - 30 percent more efficient.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8423
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:18 am

Channex737 wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
Channex737 wrote:
There is one thing that gets me though,
There is all this talk of the A321XLR and to a Lesser extent the LR being game changing, however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports by being able to get off a say, roughly 2000M runway and fly 8+ hours without sacrificing payload, and, I’m not convinced that these aircraft can reliably do that yet.
Would that not be a true breakthrough?



Sounds like a 757-200.


Exactly, which is what I’m getting at, there needs to be an aircraft which can match the 757, and I’m still not convinced that the 321XLR, while close will be able to replace them, the large European 757 operators (granted they are nowhere near the size of the US ones) LS, DE and BY aren’t queuing up to replace them and while the majority of these airlines routes don’t require the range, LS needs something that can make EWR from LBA and BY could operate thinner longer routes freeing up 787s. I’m still not convinced.


Of course the A321XLR would not be able to replace a 757-300, but there the advantage was passenger numbers and low CASM not range.

While the A321LR just about matches the 757-200WL, the A321XLR solidly exceeds the capabilities of the 757-200WL in regards to long range lift.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Narrow Body LH development thread

Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:31 am

PacoMartin wrote:
Khazistan.

what is it?
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:39 am

RalXWB wrote:
It is sad that the same myths re 757 are repeated again and again.
Fact is, the 321 LR already matches the range of the 757 and the 321 XLR flies even farther while being 25 - 30 percent more efficient.


Fact is, that the A321LR cant even fly a route like HAM-NYC reliably throughout the year. So the real world performance looks different than on paper ... This of course looks different with the XLR, which will be the one matchting the 757 or beating it.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
wave46
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:27 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
...incremental game-changer....


I'm not trying to be excessively pedantic, but isn't this kind of a contradiction in terms?

There's so much usage of the term 'game-changer' to effectively become meaningless. A 'game-changer' is an aircraft that revolutionizes travel - the 707 and 747 being fairly obvious examples.

My take: The A321XLR is no game-changer. It's a niche aircraft that allows for some more connections from far secondary destinations to hubs, but that's kind of the end of it. A few airlines - particularly ones that do trans-Atlantic flying - may find a use for it.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:51 pm

wave46 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
...incremental game-changer....


I'm not trying to be excessively pedantic, but isn't this kind of a contradiction in terms?


No you are not being pedantic. I meant it as a sarcastic comment. I think that the A321XLR will replace many of the current TATL routes that are flown with B752 and B763. I don't think it will radically change the TATL market at all.

The popular routes to Europe have airports that can't really tolerate a major shift from dual -aisle jets to single-aisle jets.
The widely discussed routes from secondary airport to secondary airport (like Providence, RI to Edinburgh, Scotland) have not last more than a few months. They may not be viable even with the smaller size jets.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body LH development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:38 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Khazistan.
what is it?


Mea Culpa, I mean Kazakhstan
LHR- ALA 3,045 nautical miles
FRA - ALA 2,756 nautical miles

Almaty only connects to Frankfurt in Western Europe on Lufthansa.

Other than that passengers that want to fly to Europe connect through Moscow–Sheremetyevo, Moscow–Domodedovo, Saint Petersburg, Istanbul, or Dubai with Seasonal flights to Antalya, Riga, and Thessaloniki.

A smaller single-aisle jet will make it easier to fly to London, Paris, Scandinavia, or Mediterranean airports.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:10 am

Currently the longest scheduled flights using narrow bodies for each model are:
3,641 nm Reykjavik to San Francisco | time 8:55 on a B757-200 using Icelandair
3,318 nm Montréal to Nice | time 7:25 on an A321neo using Air Transat
3,300 nm Brasília to Orlando | time 9:50 on a 737 MAX 8 using Gol Transportes Aéreos (obviously suspended)
3,017 nm JFK to London-City | time 7:25 on an Airbus A318 British Airways (32 lie flat seats)
 
PHLCVGAMTK
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:50 am

It seems to me that the fastest changes will happen on routes that already have long-haul service on widebodies, but at less-than-once-daily frequencies.

Consider last week's announcements for YOW-FRA. Seasonal daily AC 763 being replaced by seasonal 5x weekly LH 343. Downgauge that to an A321XLR, and that flight not only goes daily, but the season extends and possibly goes year-round. If extra service is warranted at peak season, then the Star carriers look at YOW-MUC or YOW-BRU, and even if *those* flights are less than daily, the existence of a daily flight to a European *A hub solidifies that traffic at YOW in preference to leakage to YUL, or connection at YYZ. Over time, maybe a non-Star airline like EI might make a competitive play for YOW-EU traffic, but in the meantime *A builds business in a location where it has low costs and a RASM premium.

Now, repeat this process for every mid-sized airport in the Eastern US or Canada, or Western and Central Europe, that only has one TATL flight, especially the seasonal destinations. That won't be a "game changer" (ugh) so much as a Very Quiet Revolution, but it will be a development that's good for travelers and good for airlines. After all that shakes out, is when I expect to see the proliferation of experimentation in routes by the major carriers, which the longhaul LCCs have been anticipating but too early.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:42 am

PacoMartin wrote:
Currently the longest scheduled flights using narrow bodies for each model are:
3,641 nm Reykjavik to San Francisco | time 8:55 on a B757-200 using Icelandair
3,318 nm Montréal to Nice | time 7:25 on an A321neo using Air Transat
3,300 nm Brasília to Orlando | time 9:50 on a 737 MAX 8 using Gol Transportes Aéreos (obviously suspended)
3,017 nm JFK to London-City | time 7:25 on an Airbus A318 British Airways (32 lie flat seats)

Fascinating, the NEO/MAX mission range is equivalent. The A220 will hopefully gain enough range (xLR or whatever) to help move up the list.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:32 am

Why is it fascinating that the mission range of a smaller airplane is equivalent to a larger airplane, not to mention that this concerns just some random examples?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6882
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Narrow Body LH development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:34 am

PacoMartin wrote:
scbriml wrote:
More than any other option available, the A321XLR is a revolutionary game-changer.


I suspect it will become a revolutionary game-changer for India, Afghanistan, Khazistan and Nepal to Europe and for much of Africa to Europe.

BOM LHR 3,899 nm Mumbai to London
LHR NBO 3,687 nm London to Nairobi

These markets that were too small for wide bodies should be blown wide open in the next 20 years.


For me the reason this thread exists is that the "game" has been changing for decades now, with ever more capable and ever more numerous numerous narrowbodies pushing widebodys out of the short-to medium haul frequency driven market.
It is the true manifestation of fragmentation in my opinion, and has happened under our radar whilst we have all be raving over sexy new widebodys.
The A321XLR won't revolutionise anything IMO.
What it will do is move the "game" on again a still further increment.
In that sense it is a "game changer".
But then so are the MAX, NEO and A220

Don't forget that NEO's and MAXes haven't hit the market in big enough numbers to gauge their true effect yet, never mind, the A321XLR, or A220XLR, and whatever other range gaining narrowbody derivatives come forward

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13120
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:52 am

To be pendantic, I think the A321XLR will prove a game changer. Apart from technical specifics, it's an affordable, mass produced, low risk aircraft breaking up markets, dominated by widebodies/ legacy carriers for decades.

Image

Airlines that never considered long haul are now making that step. And the legacies have to follow, not only opportunistic but also defensively.

The A321LR had the same restriction as the 757. The XLR opens up new territory. Low cost/risk. The range of the XLR is an incremental increase, but it's game changing because of how the global populations are spread out.

TATL and Euro-Asia are the biggest LH markets. Direct or with 1 Hub inbetween low cost operations will change the market/ change the game.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:33 pm

I disagree on narrowbody long haul mostly being on existing widebody routes. Due to the reduced costs, new routes will be tried. Look at narrowbody TCON flights. While some were widebody (LAX/SFO to BOS/JFK), most are new. E.g., LAX-BDL/TPA. With the incredibly low A220 costs, that means exciting new routes can be profitable.

keesje wrote:
To be pendantic, I think the A321XLR will prove a game changer. Apart from technical specifics, it's an affordable, mass produced, low risk aircraft breaking up markets, dominated by widebodies/ legacy carriers for decades.

Image

Airlines that never considered long haul are now making that step. And the legacies have to follow, not only opportunistic but also defensively.

The A321LR had the same restriction as the 757. The XLR opens up new territory. Low cost/risk. The range of the XLR is an incremental increase, but it's game changing because of how the global populations are spread out.

TATL and Euro-Asia are the biggest LH markets. Direct or with 1 Hub inbetween low cost operations will change the market/ change the game.

I 100% agreed that airlines that wouldn't consider the step to widebodies are now making the step to long haul via the A321/LE/xLR.

I'm more excited about more connections or connecting the dots.

That is where the A220xLR (or whatever) comes in. Moxie's founder knows if opportunities in South America. Buy buying a longer range small plane that makes starting service low risk due to the low costs.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
DWC
Topic Author
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Narrow Body LH development thread

Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:06 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Mea Culpa, I mean Kazakhstan
Almaty only connects to Frankfurt in Western Europe on Lufthansa.
Other than that passengers that want to fly to Europe connect through Moscow–Sheremetyevo, Moscow–Domodedovo, Saint Petersburg, Istanbul, or Dubai with Seasonal flights to Antalya, Riga, and Thessaloniki.
A smaller single-aisle jet will make it easier to fly to London, Paris, Scandinavia, or Mediterranean airports.

I am glad you brought in Air Astana (KC), it's one of those excellent FSCs few people know about, the country is so rich they are building a regional hub at ALA. https://airastana.com/global/en-us/

Incidently, IATA's code ALA was after ALMATY International Airport, the new capital President Nursultan Nazarbayev moved up north from Alma Ata, to prevent any Russian claim over the northern part of the present-day country, by all means a huge "province" or colony made by the Soviets which explains why in 1991 it was so predominantly Russian. Brezhnev wanted to cut it in two & integrate the northern half to Russia, Russia's highway to the East actually goes through north Khazakhstan (has 2 kh, 2 expired Ks ) for a bit. Nursultan was a Communist leader, appointed head of Khazakhstan by Gorbachoff, he never forgot that.
Long story short, guess what, "Almaty" is no more, it was renamed this year to "NUR SULTAN" no less... But then we have Washington DC, Washington WA, Auckland, Sydney... and all those men names in British colonies, islands or countries, past & present.

Also along KC, other airlines in the region like Aizerbaijan airlines that flies a 787 to JFK but reportedly with disappointing LFs ( the route goes on & off ) or Turkmenistan Airlines could open routes to the EU or Japan. There also was some East Asian airline, forgot which, that flew to the EU on a A320 with a fuelstop somewhere, like that LH flight to Pune : I thought it was MIAT but then they have no airbuses. Or maybe it was on 737, don't remember. Or another airlines.


As to the term Game Changer :
yes, it is often overused as a buzzword. But I think is comes in line here, because of
1. the increasing number of airlines using again a narrow body on long haul
2. as pointed above by someone, replacing the 757s & 767s across the Pond
3. the central asian examples mentionned above show that smaller players can beat the hub & spoke model of larger carriers ( ME3, LH, etc )
4. from their repective hubs, MIA, IAH & DFW the US3 could connect to more highly populated cities in deep south America, I mean the continent, specially in Brazil ( not just GRU & GIG )
5. which brings in TK, they could reach more secondary cities down in Africa, north-east into the CIS, east into India & East-Asia.
6. AF-KL & IAH could probably add a few routes themselves to America & Africa.

So I fully agree with Keesje :

keesje wrote:
To be pendantic, I think the A321XLR will prove a game changer. Apart from technical specifics, it's an affordable, mass produced, low risk aircraft breaking up markets, dominated by widebodies/ legacy carriers for decades.

Airlines that never considered long haul are now making that step. And the legacies have to follow, not only opportunistic but also defensively.

TATL and Euro-Asia are the biggest LH markets. Direct or with 1 Hub inbetween low cost operations will change the market/ change the game.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13120
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:46 am

I think it might help the A321XLR becoming a "game changer", that many prospect customers have A320 family slots spread out over the next 8 years that some could relatively easily can be converted to XLR's. Operators can relatively quickly change & implement new strategy, making it harder for competitors to respond.

At this stage the backlog is ~6000 reserved slots. And most customers have A320 pilot, MRO infrastructure in place. Legacy's like AA, Qanats and IAG were quick to order, but the Indigo's, Jetblue's and Air Asia's could be the more disruptive operators.

I could see Boeing allies like Air Canada, United and JAL jump ship any moment. Leasing companies also have hundreds of 2021-2023 NEO slots up for negotiation.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:18 am

RalXWB wrote:
Why is it fascinating that the mission range of a smaller airplane is equivalent to a larger airplane, not to mention that this concerns just some random examples?

The examples were not random. I highlighted the longest current routes flown by each narrowbody model. The Brazil-Orlando route is currently being flown by a B738 while the MAX is suspended. I also wrote the list to point out that nobody has scheduled the A321LR for a real record breaking distance yet.
===============================

Boeing keeps track of routes that were pioneered by a Dreamliner to provide verifiable statistics as to the "game-changing" nature of the Dreamliner.
2012 (1 New Route)
2013 (9 New Routes)
2014 (32 New Routes)
2015 (24 New Routes)
2016 (33 New Routes)
2017 (44 New Routes)
2018 (64 New Routes)
2019 (28 New Routes)

New Routes to the USA in 2019 are:
Munich, Germany — Dallas-Fort Worth, United States
London, United Kingdom — Miami, United States
London, United Kingdom — San Francisco, United States
London, United Kingdom — Pittsburgh, United States
Doncaster Sheffield, United Kingdom — Sanford, United States
Warsaw, Poland — Miami, United States
Casablanca, Morocco — Boston, United States
Casablanca, Morocco — Miami, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel — Las Vegas, United States
Cairo, Egypt — Washington D.C., United States

I copied those routes from Boeing website, so I didn't try and verify. Some of them seem suspicious as to be "new routes"

I am unsure if the A321neos purchased by the five USA airlines are going to be game changers.

120 AMERICAN AIRLINES (50 upgraded to XLR) 6 in service
100 DELTA AIR LINES zero deliveries
85 JETBLUE AIRWAYS 1 in service
34 FRONTIER AIRLINES zero deliveries
18 HAWAIIAN AIRLINES 14 in service

Hawaiian has no real interest in setting range records. They are more interested in the flexibility of having a jet with 189 seats (A321neo) instead of 278 seats (A330) to fly to the mainland. The most dramatic change they made was to switch out the A330 flying to Sacramento with an A321neo and redeploying the A330 to a new nonstop to Boston.
They are also able to put more nonstops to smaller islands so less flying to Honolulu and taking an inter-island connection.
Maui to OAK, SJC, SAN, PDX and LAS (this December)
Lihue to OAK and LAX
Kona to LAX

JetBlue is getting the most attention by announcing their intention of flying JFK and BOS to London. That, of course, is not a "new route" but it is the first time a TransAtlantic route will be flown by other than a legacy airline.

Given the size of the Amazon jungle and the unproven profitability of flying to smaller airports on Trans Atlantic routes (i.e. Providence to Oslo) I am not sure if it will be a game changer for the USA airlines.

I just see more potential in Asia and Africa for a single-aisle jet with additional range.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:09 am

Ranges in statute miles for the infographic.
IAH KEF 3,863 mi Reykjavík [Keflavík], IS
IAH HNL 3,904 mi Honolulu [Daniel K Inouye Intl], Oahu, HI, US
IAH SCL 4,645 mi Santiago (Santiago de Chile) [Arturo Merino Benítez Intl (Pudahuel Intl)], RM, CL

MIA ANC 4,004 mi Anchorage [Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl], AK, US
MIA EZE 4,406 mi Buenos Aires [Aeropuerto Internacional Ezeiza/Ministro Pistarini], C, AR
MIA LHR 4,425 mi London [Heathrow Airport], Middlesex, ENG, GB

JFK FCO 4,277 mi Rome (Roma) [Leonardo da Vinci Intl (Fiumicino)], 62, IT

Image
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17376
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:42 am

PacoMartin wrote:
New Routes to the USA in 2019 are:
Munich, Germany — Dallas-Fort Worth, United States
London, United Kingdom — Miami, United States
London, United Kingdom — San Francisco, United States
London, United Kingdom — Pittsburgh, United States
Doncaster Sheffield, United Kingdom — Sanford, United States
Warsaw, Poland — Miami, United States
Casablanca, Morocco — Boston, United States
Casablanca, Morocco — Miami, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel — Las Vegas, United States
Cairo, Egypt — Washington D.C., United States

I copied those routes from Boeing website, so I didn't try and verify. Some of them seem suspicious as to be "new routes"


With just one exception, those are all hub-to-hub routes. Maybe flown by new or different airlines, but I don't really see anything "game changing" about them.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:29 pm

scbriml wrote:
With just one exception, those are all hub-to-hub routes. Maybe flown by new or different airlines, but I don't really see anything "game changing" about them.


Boeing has always promoted the Dreamliner as having the ability to "Open New Routes" by making the long thin routes economical that were not previously economical with the B777-300ER. They state that since the Dreamliner went into service in 2011 it is flying more than 1900 routes and has made more than 235 new point to point routes possible. I simply highlighted the routes from 2019 that involved the USA.

You can look at the entire list of 235 new routes on Boeing's website.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/

I have to figure out Boeing's logic as to claiming something is a "new route". Certainly London to New York or Los Angeles (for instance) was not created by the Dreamliner. Boeing does not provide amplifying information or the carrier that is flying this "new route".

2013 New routes
Tokyo, Japan — San Jose, United States

2014 New routes
London, United Kingdom — New York, United States
London, United Kingdom— Los Angeles, United States
Stockholm, Sweden — Los Angeles, United States
Stockholm, Sweden — Oakland, United States
Oslo, Norway — Los Angeles, United States
Oslo, Norway — Oakland, United States
Oslo, Norway — Orlando, United States
Bergen, Norway — New York, United States
Copenhagen, Denmark — Los Angeles, United States
Chengdu, China — San Francisco, United States
Guangzhou, China — San Francisco, United States
 
ewt340
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:36 pm

WHile many people talk about the possibility of tons of new long thin routes from smaller airports, realistically speaking, I see more Airlines using plane like A321XLR on shorter routes (shorter than 3000nmi) and utilize the heavier mtow for extra cargo revenue or high density configurations.
 
timh4000
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:14 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:09 pm

airzona11 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I find it quite interesting that we have come full circle back to planes the size of the 707 and original DC8s.


Great comparison. The reality is, AA DL UA AC BA LH AF KL the list goes on, all of the airlines flying long haul are not going from widebodie to narrow bodies. Widebody production has never had higher capacity. The model might work for fringe flying or small operators, but there is no substantial long haul narrow body flying above what there previously was.

I agree with this. Mostly for economic reasons. A small airport, and I will use my previous home airport of ALB can any of the major carriers find enough passengers to fly on single isle planes that would or could fly 7k miles and make it be profitable?

As it is not only are the wide bodies rarely coming close to their max distance but now you see the narrow bodies so often capable of transcon flights making trips of 1k miles and less. It is nice that there are greater mid/semi long range options out there, the modern 737, the 321, 757's which we will still see a few here and there for the next several years at least. Hopefully some of their increased range will be offered to the smaller airports eventually.
 
Sokes
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:51 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Boeing has always promoted the Dreamliner as having the ability to "Open New Routes" by making the long thin routes economical that were not previously economical with the B777-300ER. They state that since the Dreamliner went into service in 2011 it is flying more than 1900 routes and has made more than 235 new point to point routes possible. I simply highlighted the routes from 2019 that involved the USA.

...

I have to figure out Boeing's logic as to claiming something is a "new route". Certainly London to New York or Los Angeles (for instance) was not created by the Dreamliner.


You already mentioned yourself that it's doubtful London to Los Angeles was "opened" by the Dreamliner.
I have another objection. There was a lot of traffic growth since 2011. If it's easier to fill a B787-8 today than an A330-200 in 2011 one can't assume the route wouldn't be served today without the Dreamliner. That's not to say the B787 isn't the better plane. I just mean it doesn't make it a route opener. Traffic growth is the route opener for many of the routes.

Are there any points to hubs with the Dreamliner?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:54 pm

ewt340 wrote:
WHile many people talk about the possibility of tons of new long thin routes from smaller airports, realistically speaking, I see more Airlines using plane like A321XLR on shorter routes (shorter than 3000nmi) and utilize the heavier mtow for extra cargo revenue or high density configurations.

Possibly in the USA a lot shorter than 3000 nmi.

Consider these routes to Maui and Honolulu (currently being flown )
LAS OGG 2,342 nm - December 2019 A321neo
LAS HNL 2,400 nm - Hawaiian Airlines (A330-200)
PHX OGG 2,472 nm - American Airlines (B757-200)
PHX KOA 2,485 nm - American Airlines (B757-200)
PHX HNL 2,535 nm - Hawaiian (A330-200)/ American Airlines (A330-300)
PHX LIH 2,589 nm - American Airlines (B757-200)
SLC OGG 2,551 nm - Delta (Boeing 767-300ER)
SLC HNL 2,601 nm - Delta Airlines (A330-300)


So far only the shortest route has been replaced with an A321neo. You would think that Hawaiian would consider PHX-OGG.

It is possible that there have not been enough deliveries yet
 
JibberJim
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:28 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I have to figure out Boeing's logic as to claiming something is a "new route". Certainly London to New York or Los Angeles (for instance) was not created by the Dreamliner. Boeing does not provide amplifying information or the carrier that is flying this "new route".


Aren't all of the 2014 routes other than the Chinese ones simply Norwegian's entries, so it was LGW - JFK, which also opened up BA on the route (and soon Virgin?) of course there had been lots of other airlines on the route before, and dozens of airlines on the wider London New York, but I think at the time there were none specifically flying the route, poor Londoners had to make the long trek to Heathrow to get a flight if they were lucky.

Also, I'm not convinced that the Norwegian routes will actually prove successful.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:38 pm

JibberJim wrote:
Aren't all of the 2014 routes other than the Chinese ones simply Norwegian's entries, so it was LGW - JFK, which also opened up BA on the route (and soon Virgin?) of course there had been lots of other airlines on the route before, and dozens of airlines on the wider London New York, but I think at the time there were none specifically flying the route, poor Londoners had to make the long trek to Heathrow to get a flight if they were lucky.

Also, I'm not convinced that the Norwegian routes will actually prove successful.


Actually Heathrow is the closer airport. It's just that the train to Gatwick is less expensive than the Heathrow Express. Victoria Station is more frequented by the middle class than Paddington Station. Victoria Station has cheap bed and breakfast's nearby while Paddington is surrounded by expensive hotels.

Norwegian is not even sure if it is going to survive. If only the marriage was exactly like the honeymoon.

Many people were talking about a Renaissance that was going to be brought about by the MAX and A321neo. There was going to be flights from Providence to Cork, Hartford CT to Edinborough, and dozens of other similar connections. They all went belly up very quickly.

Personally, I would have guessed that Spirit Airlines would be the first USA airline to jump on the A321XLR bandwagon. I assumed that since they flew Fort Lauderdale to Lima Peru that they would welcome the opportunity to compete with American to the other airports in the Southern Cone. But Sprit is the only USA operator of the A321ceo that has not yet ordered the A321neo.

So now I have more of a wait and see attitude. I have no doubt that American and Delta will replace some of their B752 routes to Hawaii and Europe with the A321LR and XLR
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:15 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.


So how do you think Boeing are gonna persuade the FAA to grandfather that? [/sarcasm]


The FAA is letting Boeing grandfather a lot of the 777X, so...

Grandfathering has a lot to do with systems control and handling. If the 737 MAX 2.0 was built all in composites but kept all of the controls and essential flight characteristics of its Aluminum predecessor, there's no reason to DENY the grandfathering.

tealnz wrote:
Yeah I would expect the NMA to be a market success – plenty of the majors have already signalled they want it in their fleets.

But on the principle of sauce for the goose... it's clear the NMA is not being designed for cargo either. If cargo kills the economics of the XLR what makes you imagine it's different for the NMA?


If Boeing ISN'T designing SOME cargo capability into the successor of the 767, they're shooting themselves in the foot. And they may need to add that capability to better square off against the A321 XLR. The only reason I can see them doing something purely pax-focused is if the NMA freighter would cannibalize the 787 freighter. But at that point the NMA is really only golden for LCCs. Most full-service carriers use SOME cargo capacity to subsidize ticket prices after all.

Truth be told if I wanted to design a 10-hour-range plane that struck the balance of being both a great freighter and great passenger jet up front, I'd probably take the smaller wing from the 788, optimise it (folding wing tips, scimitar/split-scimitar winglets), and plan for no central wing box tank. The fuselage being optimized for 18" wide 2-3-2 seating can probably be fitted to the modified wing without much issue. With the GTF, GE9X, LEAP, and eventual Ultrafan derivatives, there should be enough engine performance now to be able to save the weight from the central tank. Or, if it's not possible to avoid a wingbox tank, thin the wings out until the fuel capacity is in line with 10-hour range.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3110
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:47 pm

NMA makes sense for a lot of airlines simply because A321XLR simply isn't a good fit for many airlines models. For example, AA and A321XLR works because a lot of their TATL routes served by 787 has small deck space reserved for Business class and the rest on cheap seats. A321XLR allows them to reserve similar number of J seats with fewer cheap seats to fit. Plus, they are already a huge A321 client. United and A321XLR doesn't work too well, because their current business model requires large J cabins for TATL missions that would be hard to replicate on A321XLR and they don't have a large A320 series fleet. So for them, I'm sure NMA makes more sense as a replacement for 757/767. DL and A321XLR may work well due to their large A321/NEO order but may also not work well, because they have in the recent years looked to have large D1 suites which doesn't really work on single aisle aircraft. NMA with a wider cabin would allow for more spacious J cabin for TATL routes.

With all that freight capacity these days, freight is pretty low yielding compared to J cabin. I don't see how NMA can rely on freight as its competitive advantage against A321XLR. Greater range and more floor space allowing for widebody comfort are where NMA wins in.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:59 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.


So how do you think Boeing are gonna persuade the FAA to grandfather that? [/sarcasm]


The FAA is letting Boeing grandfather a lot of the 777X, so...

Grandfathering has a lot to do with systems control and handling. If the 737 MAX 2.0 was built all in composites but kept all of the controls and essential flight characteristics of its Aluminum predecessor, there's no reason to DENY the grandfathering.


Please. Some of the kids on here might buy that line, but your barking up the wrong tree.


Changing the wing and fuselage to composites completely changes the balance of the aircraft and the aero-elasticity of the wing and fuselage - which both feed into radically different gust response. That will in turn require adjustment of the tail volume ratio and/or control characteristics changes.

Furthermore, as your airframe is now fully composite - then your lightening strike characteristics and thus systems detail design completely change. For instance, new electrical arcing requirements are imposed - wouldn't be good for the hydraulic pumps that runs your elevator actuators to short out due to a lightening strike would it?

I'd also wager now that after the MAX debacle, if the FAA could wind the clock back, they would not have agreed to grandfather the 777X.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:16 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

So how do you think Boeing are gonna persuade the FAA to grandfather that? [/sarcasm]


The FAA is letting Boeing grandfather a lot of the 777X, so...

Grandfathering has a lot to do with systems control and handling. If the 737 MAX 2.0 was built all in composites but kept all of the controls and essential flight characteristics of its Aluminum predecessor, there's no reason to DENY the grandfathering.


Please. Some of the kids on here might buy that line, but your barking up the wrong tree.


Changing the wing and fuselage to composites completely changes the balance of the aircraft and the aero-elasticity of the wing and fuselage - which both feed into radically different gust response. That will in turn require adjustment of the tail volume ratio and/or control characteristics changes.

Furthermore, as your airframe is now fully composite - then your lightening strike characteristics and thus systems detail design completely change. For instance, new electrical arcing requirements are imposed - wouldn't be good for the hydraulic pumps that runs your elevator actuators to short out due to a lightening strike would it?

I'd also wager now that after the MAX debacle, if the FAA could wind the clock back, they would not have agreed to grandfather the 777X.


It wouldn't change the balance at all. A sphere of iron and a sphere of aluminum have the same balance. A sphere of aluminum and a sphere of carbon have the same balance. What IS different is the angular moment and thus moment-arm for each same-sized sphere. Subtle, but important, which then goes into your aero-elasticity point. The bending moments change, and the lighter overall frame does make it more susceptible to high winds, but pilots are trained for gusts anyway, so I don't see that as a huge deal unless the swings are truly violent, in which case, use some of the 787's tech to use radar to read the air and manipulate the various surfaces in real time to mitigate it.

And it would be up to Boeing to guarantee the wing design ensures similar-enough control to satisfy grandfathering. I said it was a simple concept, not a simple execution.

Lightning strikes on composite materials have been well-understood for the better part of 2 decades. That's a bit of an inane point in this case. Yes wiring would be re-routed. Given Boeing and Airbus both redid the wiring for their latest generation of jets, that's not a surprising or difficult requirement.

Other than the sort of hybrid 777/787 cockpit/flight deck, I don't see anything unreasonable in the grandfathering the FAA allowed, so long as the actual airside handling of the plane is highly similar to the 777. If anything the grandfathering of the 777-300 from the 200 makes the least sense. In that case you had actual dimensional changes in the fuselage and wing all at once.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13120
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:27 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

The FAA is letting Boeing grandfather a lot of the 777X, so...

Grandfathering has a lot to do with systems control and handling. If the 737 MAX 2.0 was built all in composites but kept all of the controls and essential flight characteristics of its Aluminum predecessor, there's no reason to DENY the grandfathering.


Please. Some of the kids on here might buy that line, but your barking up the wrong tree.


Changing the wing and fuselage to composites completely changes the balance of the aircraft and the aero-elasticity of the wing and fuselage - which both feed into radically different gust response. That will in turn require adjustment of the tail volume ratio and/or control characteristics changes.

Furthermore, as your airframe is now fully composite - then your lightening strike characteristics and thus systems detail design completely change. For instance, new electrical arcing requirements are imposed - wouldn't be good for the hydraulic pumps that runs your elevator actuators to short out due to a lightening strike would it?

I'd also wager now that after the MAX debacle, if the FAA could wind the clock back, they would not have agreed to grandfather the 777X.


It wouldn't change the balance at all. A sphere of iron and a sphere of aluminum have the same balance. A sphere of aluminum and a sphere of carbon have the same balance. What IS different is the angular moment and thus moment-arm for each same-sized sphere. Subtle, but important, which then goes into your aero-elasticity point. The bending moments change, and the lighter overall frame does make it more susceptible to high winds, but pilots are trained for gusts anyway, so I don't see that as a huge deal unless the swings are truly violent, in which case, use some of the 787's tech to use radar to read the air and manipulate the various surfaces in real time to mitigate it.

And it would be up to Boeing to guarantee the wing design ensures similar-enough control to satisfy grandfathering. I said it was a simple concept, not a simple execution.

Lightning strikes on composite materials have been well-understood for the better part of 2 decades. That's a bit of an inane point in this case. Yes wiring would be re-routed. Given Boeing and Airbus both redid the wiring for their latest generation of jets, that's not a surprising or difficult requirement.

Other than the sort of hybrid 777/787 cockpit/flight deck, I don't see anything unreasonable in the grandfathering the FAA allowed, so long as the actual airside handling of the plane is highly similar to the 777. If anything the grandfathering of the 777-300 from the 200 makes the least sense. In that case you had actual dimensional changes in the fuselage and wing all at once.


? Compared to the certification base, the 777-300ER, the 777-9 is longer, has larger tail surfaces, 787 style cockpit, entirely different wings, folding tips, new engines, landing gears, fuselage structure (materials, dimensions, bigger windows, relocated doors). Amazingly, still somehow grandfathered certification was allowed from the previous TC.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:40 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
It wouldn't change the balance at all. A sphere of iron and a sphere of aluminum have the same balance


If you are going to design you composite structure with isotropic laminate properties, then its going to be a pretty crap design. What would be the point? An isotropic CFRP is going to be heavier and more bulky than an aluminium equivalent.

On the other hand, if, like every modern airborne composite structure, you tailor the laminates to the loading, then its not the same shape.


Furthermore, to my real point - a composite wing will flex quite differently from a metallic one - and a composite fuselage will flex quite differently to a metallic one. Both of which impinge on the response of the aircraft to a gust. Which then has material effects on control.


Lightning strikes on composite materials have been well-understood for the better part of 2 decades. That's a bit of an inane point in this case. Yes wiring would be re-routed. Given Boeing and Airbus both redid the wiring for their latest generation of jets, that's not a surprising or difficult requirement.


It means you aren't going to benefit from grandfathering. The FAA are not going to apply a 1960s rule to a composite fuselage.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:42 pm

keesje wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

Please. Some of the kids on here might buy that line, but your barking up the wrong tree.


Changing the wing and fuselage to composites completely changes the balance of the aircraft and the aero-elasticity of the wing and fuselage - which both feed into radically different gust response. That will in turn require adjustment of the tail volume ratio and/or control characteristics changes.

Furthermore, as your airframe is now fully composite - then your lightening strike characteristics and thus systems detail design completely change. For instance, new electrical arcing requirements are imposed - wouldn't be good for the hydraulic pumps that runs your elevator actuators to short out due to a lightening strike would it?

I'd also wager now that after the MAX debacle, if the FAA could wind the clock back, they would not have agreed to grandfather the 777X.


It wouldn't change the balance at all. A sphere of iron and a sphere of aluminum have the same balance. A sphere of aluminum and a sphere of carbon have the same balance. What IS different is the angular moment and thus moment-arm for each same-sized sphere. Subtle, but important, which then goes into your aero-elasticity point. The bending moments change, and the lighter overall frame does make it more susceptible to high winds, but pilots are trained for gusts anyway, so I don't see that as a huge deal unless the swings are truly violent, in which case, use some of the 787's tech to use radar to read the air and manipulate the various surfaces in real time to mitigate it.

And it would be up to Boeing to guarantee the wing design ensures similar-enough control to satisfy grandfathering. I said it was a simple concept, not a simple execution.

Lightning strikes on composite materials have been well-understood for the better part of 2 decades. That's a bit of an inane point in this case. Yes wiring would be re-routed. Given Boeing and Airbus both redid the wiring for their latest generation of jets, that's not a surprising or difficult requirement.

Other than the sort of hybrid 777/787 cockpit/flight deck, I don't see anything unreasonable in the grandfathering the FAA allowed, so long as the actual airside handling of the plane is highly similar to the 777. If anything the grandfathering of the 777-300 from the 200 makes the least sense. In that case you had actual dimensional changes in the fuselage and wing all at once.


? Compared to the certification base, the 777-300ER, the 777-9 is longer, has larger tail surfaces, 787 style cockpit, entirely different wings, folding tips, new engines, landing gears, fuselage structure (materials, dimensions, bigger windows, relocated doors). Amazingly, still somehow grandfathered certification was allowed from the previous TC.


And the 737 MAX had new wingtips, new engines, modified landing gear.

The A330N is longer, has bigger windows, (slightly) modified wing, new wing tips, etc..

Most of grandfathering comes down to handling and in-flight behavior. You do need SOME training to move between the various 737 types, but the same holds for the A320s and the same holds for the A330s. Pushing the envelope is in management's interests, sure, but that's not to say the conclusion is invalid. If we had all the paperwork and rationale behind every decision, it would be an interesting venture to peruse it.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:47 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
It wouldn't change the balance at all. A sphere of iron and a sphere of aluminum have the same balance


If you are going to design you composite structure with isotropic laminate properties, then its going to be a pretty crap design. What would be the point? An isotropic CFRP is going to be heavier and more bulky than an aluminium equivalent.

On the other hand, if, like every modern airborne composite structure, you tailor the laminates to the loading, then its not the same shape.


Furthermore, to my real point - a composite wing will flex quite differently from a metallic one - and a composite fuselage will flex quite differently to a metallic one. Both of which impinge on the response of the aircraft to a gust. Which then has material effects on control.


Lightning strikes on composite materials have been well-understood for the better part of 2 decades. That's a bit of an inane point in this case. Yes wiring would be re-routed. Given Boeing and Airbus both redid the wiring for their latest generation of jets, that's not a surprising or difficult requirement.


It means you aren't going to benefit from grandfathering. The FAA are not going to apply a 1960s rule to a composite fuselage.


It wouldn't be heavier, but yes, you WOULD optimise the shape. That being said, there are a lot of similarities already between the 737 MAX and 787 wing geometry, so I seriously don't expect that to be much of a problem for the engineers to square the circle. That still, on its down, does not change the balance. We still expect an aircraft on its own to be almost perfectly balanced from left to right. When it comes to the front-to-back balance, you'll manage that almost entirely with wing sweep on a single-aisle craft.

The 1960s rule wouldn't be used, but that's immaterial to the grandfathering. That's purely the soundness of the design and engineering, which are orthogonal to the handling of the craft.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:46 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
That being said, there are a lot of similarities already between the 737 MAX and 787 wing geometry


As in both are fairly large flattish shapes?

Of the two commercial aircraft in the sky today with the most disparate wing designs - you probably couldn't have found better examples. In the context of them both being aircraft wings, they are nothing alike aerodynamically or structurally.

737 is not a fully supercritical aerofoil section.

737 is a "stiff" wing, 787 extremely flexural.

787 has a far higher sweep angle - as expected with the higher cruise Mach number (which the wing is also designed for).

Look at the flap track fairings from 737max vs. the 787 - completely different philosophy as regards shock bodies.


patrickjp93 wrote:
The 1960s rule wouldn't be used, but that's immaterial to the grandfathering.


That is the whole point of grandfathering - to get away from applying more stringent recent regulations!
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:53 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
That being said, there are a lot of similarities already between the 737 MAX and 787 wing geometry


As in both are fairly large flattish shapes?

Of the two commercial aircraft in the sky today with the most disparate wing designs - you probably couldn't have found better examples. In the context of them both being aircraft wings, they are nothing alike aerodynamically or structurally.

737 is not a fully supercritical aerofoil section. No, but the MAX is much closer to that than the NG. The curvature is basically built into the wing now, whereas the 787's bends into shape on takeoff.

737 is a "stiff" wing, 787 extremely flexural. see previous

787 has a far higher sweep angle - as expected with the higher cruise Mach number (which the wing is also designed for). Upward or backward? Upward sweep on the MAX's wing is fairly pronounced compared to its predecessors. Backward I'll grant you, but that's a core difference between short and long-haul optimisation

Look at the flap track fairings from 737max vs. the 787 - completely different philosophy as regards shock bodies. Primarily because of wing size, but when we're looking at the actual cruising wing geometry, this is hardly the hill to fight on.


patrickjp93 wrote:
The 1960s rule wouldn't be used, but that's immaterial to the grandfathering.


That is the whole point of grandfathering - to get away from applying more stringent recent regulations!


Selectively. Grandfathering also imposes many engineering and optimization constraints, as I'm sure plenty of engineers from various fields on this forum will tell you. Clean sheeting designs is intrinsically easier and simpler from that point of view. I'll use software as an example. Code that I write in C++ can be made compatible with many different versions of the language (98, 11, 14, 17, and soon 20). Each consecutive edition has various idioms which make expressing core ideas, algorithms, and transformations simpler as long as you know which idioms pair well or don't. Some features and changes in 11 and 14 in particular do not play well with their primitive ancestors in 98 (such as auto_ptr<> and async<> vs. the newer shared_ptr<> and future<>). However, refactoring code in-place, trying to re-understand the context of weird workarounds and safety mechanisms you needed for old code while reasoning about the new way of doing things to fix up an intended piece of functionality is quite difficult.

Instead, rewriting functions from scratch based on their functionality in the new world language is a much simpler affair. Bringing a lightsaber to a knife fight is probably the best analogy. It can be much harder to prove something new fits within a dated context and standard. So, grandfathering is used flexibly and selectively for this very reason. As long as each successive type is similar enough to the previous for the pilots, grandfathering passes. If you tried to grandfather the MAX directly from the original, the FAA would laugh you clear out of the room. Good thing the original hasn't been flown commercially in eons.

And, that lightning strike regulation is hardly stringent. Faraday caging of wires is nothing new, static wicks are nothing new, and the paint composition needed for the surfaces to effectively wick is nothing new.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13120
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:08 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
keesje wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

It wouldn't change the balance at all. A sphere of iron and a sphere of aluminum have the same balance. A sphere of aluminum and a sphere of carbon have the same balance. What IS different is the angular moment and thus moment-arm for each same-sized sphere. Subtle, but important, which then goes into your aero-elasticity point. The bending moments change, and the lighter overall frame does make it more susceptible to high winds, but pilots are trained for gusts anyway, so I don't see that as a huge deal unless the swings are truly violent, in which case, use some of the 787's tech to use radar to read the air and manipulate the various surfaces in real time to mitigate it.

And it would be up to Boeing to guarantee the wing design ensures similar-enough control to satisfy grandfathering. I said it was a simple concept, not a simple execution.

Lightning strikes on composite materials have been well-understood for the better part of 2 decades. That's a bit of an inane point in this case. Yes wiring would be re-routed. Given Boeing and Airbus both redid the wiring for their latest generation of jets, that's not a surprising or difficult requirement.

Other than the sort of hybrid 777/787 cockpit/flight deck, I don't see anything unreasonable in the grandfathering the FAA allowed, so long as the actual airside handling of the plane is highly similar to the 777. If anything the grandfathering of the 777-300 from the 200 makes the least sense. In that case you had actual dimensional changes in the fuselage and wing all at once.


? Compared to the certification base, the 777-300ER, the 777-9 is longer, has larger tail surfaces, 787 style cockpit, entirely different wings, folding tips, new engines, landing gears, fuselage structure (materials, dimensions, bigger windows, relocated doors). Amazingly, still somehow grandfathered certification was allowed from the previous TC.


And the 737 MAX had new wingtips, new engines, modified landing gear.

The A330N is longer, has bigger windows, (slightly) modified wing, new wing tips, etc..

Most of grandfathering comes down to handling and in-flight behavior. You do need SOME training to move between the various 737 types, but the same holds for the A320s and the same holds for the A330s. Pushing the envelope is in management's interests, sure, but that's not to say the conclusion is invalid. If we had all the paperwork and rationale behind every decision, it would be an interesting venture to peruse it.


For the 777X, you have to think for a a few seconds on what hasn't changed compared to the 777-300ER. 20 years ago the FAA declared grandfathering design and certification would be restricted. After the 787 they changed their minds..

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-rules-kill-39grandfather-rights39-in-usa-and-europe-67064/

Boeing and the FAA now look brave on the MAX and specially the 777-9, but are sweating a more independent authority takes a good, objective look and asks why a string of significant, flight safety related changes didn't get a new Type Certificate. And how, why.. nobody use the G word.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

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