morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 2130
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

As posted in in the Airbus 2019 Thread Flugerfast is reporting that they are running the Numbers on 500/700/900 Capacities.


https://www.fliegerfaust.com/new-airbus ... 78587.html

How big could these get?

What kind of range?

Would the 700/900 require new Wing/Gear/Engines?

Could a 700/900 with more Capability replace the A320?

Keesje?
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:03 pm

I read their entire article and I doesn’t really prove much of anything is happening. They say they’ve been running something through their engineering computer. To me that would more likely be extended range variant or increases takeoff weights. It’s possible they are running numbers for a stretch or two, but more than one stretch I imagine would require work as you suspect to the wings, gear, engines, and probably other places on the structure which may be what they are trying to find out.

I usually take what Fliegerfaust says with a few grains of salt because they were the one ran the story of the Q400 program being sold off to China which it never was. Someone with their so called inside track in the rumour mill would know what actually is going on and not report that.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180
 
Elementalism
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:08 pm

I have heard rumors of a 500 that would compete with the -7. But couldnt it also eat into the A320?

As for 700/900 At some point it is less efficient to build a 5 across vs 6 across. The length of the aircraft becomes an issue.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9882
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:10 pm

767333ER wrote:
I read their entire article and I doesn’t really prove much of anything is happening. They say they’ve been running something through their engineering computer. To me that would more likely be extended range variant or increases takeoff weights. It’s possible they are running numbers for a stretch or two, but more than one stretch I imagine would require work as you suspect to the wings, gear, engines, and probably other places on the structure which may be what they are trying to find out.

I usually take what Fliegerfaust says with a few grains of salt because they were the one ran the story of the Q400 program being sold off to China which it never was. Someone with their so called inside track in the rumour mill would know what actually is going on and not report that.

:checkmark:
A A220-900 especially makes no sense, and a -700 is pushing it. At the capacities that those planes would be at it is more efficient to use the larger A320 fuselage than the A220 fuselage. The -900 would be what, the length of a 753 for the capacity of a A321?
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:20 pm

Elementalism wrote:
I have heard rumors of a 500 that would compete with the -7. But couldnt it also eat into the A320?

As for 700/900 At some point it is less efficient to build a 5 across vs 6 across. The length of the aircraft becomes an issue.

In the years ahead the A320 will only become less competitive against the A321 or the 737-8 if it ever flies again. A stretched A220 would blow those planes out of water so long as one doesn’t need the range of the heavier planes and doesn’t mind training new crews if they do not have 220s already. Most interested in it do though.
Polot wrote:
767333ER wrote:
I read their entire article and I doesn’t really prove much of anything is happening. They say they’ve been running something through their engineering computer. To me that would more likely be extended range variant or increases takeoff weights. It’s possible they are running numbers for a stretch or two, but more than one stretch I imagine would require work as you suspect to the wings, gear, engines, and probably other places on the structure which may be what they are trying to find out.

I usually take what Fliegerfaust says with a few grains of salt because they were the one ran the story of the Q400 program being sold off to China which it never was. Someone with their so called inside track in the rumour mill would know what actually is going on and not report that.

:checkmark:
A A220-900 especially makes no sense, and a -700 is pushing it. At the capacities that those planes would be at it is more efficient to use the larger A320 fuselage than the A220 fuselage. The -900 would be what, the length of a 753 for the capacity of a A321?

These Fliegerfaust articles are a bit fanboyish because they like to make something definitive out of almost nothing but rumour or misinterpreted chatter. Anything bigger than an A220-500 would be a waste of time as it would be a flying noodle. It sounds like the super stretches were mentioned because that’s what the writer wishes they would make in their fantasy. More realistically an A220-500 simple stretch would be run though the computer, then a payload increase/ range increase of the other variants as well as applied to the 500 as well and there you have 4 variants tested in the computer. There was also the idea at one point that Bombardier floated of opting to add landing gear doors, I think particularly if they stretched it, but that would be a weird mod to do.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180
 
IADCA
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:25 pm

Elementalism wrote:
I have heard rumors of a 500 that would compete with the -7. But couldnt it also eat into the A320?

As for 700/900 At some point it is less efficient to build a 5 across vs 6 across. The length of the aircraft becomes an issue.


The MAX-7 and A319NEO aren't selling well, so there's not a lot of risk to cannibalizing the bottom end of the line - the the 300 has probably already done that. The question is more about the Max-8 and A320, which really just asks how big the -500 would really be. It's a big difference in capabilities between what you'd need to do to get something that would be 160 seats in 2 classes (adding 3-4 rows of seats, so around the same degree of gap between 300 and 500 as between 100 and 300) versus 175.

Neither one is going to have anything near the range of what the 6-abreast platforms have in those capacities, but the shorter of the two stretches would probably be a heck of an efficient airplane on shorter missions. Not sure about the longer one - it strikes me that you might need to add a lot of weight to strengthen the tube to go that long, which would probably make things even worse in terms of range. One wonders whether Airbus has learned the lesson Boeing should have from the MD95/737-600 overlap however - it seems they have if they are at least looking at this.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:34 pm

767333ER wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
I have heard rumors of a 500 that would compete with the -7. But couldnt it also eat into the A320?

As for 700/900 At some point it is less efficient to build a 5 across vs 6 across. The length of the aircraft becomes an issue.

In the years ahead the A320 will only become less competitive against the A321 or the 737-8 if it ever flies again. A stretched A220 would blow those planes out of water so long as one doesn’t need the range of the heavier planes and doesn’t mind training new crews if they do not have 220s already. Most interested in it do though.
Polot wrote:
767333ER wrote:
I read their entire article and I doesn’t really prove much of anything is happening. They say they’ve been running something through their engineering computer. To me that would more likely be extended range variant or increases takeoff weights. It’s possible they are running numbers for a stretch or two, but more than one stretch I imagine would require work as you suspect to the wings, gear, engines, and probably other places on the structure which may be what they are trying to find out.

I usually take what Fliegerfaust says with a few grains of salt because they were the one ran the story of the Q400 program being sold off to China which it never was. Someone with their so called inside track in the rumour mill would know what actually is going on and not report that.

:checkmark:
A A220-900 especially makes no sense, and a -700 is pushing it. At the capacities that those planes would be at it is more efficient to use the larger A320 fuselage than the A220 fuselage. The -900 would be what, the length of a 753 for the capacity of a A321?

These Fliegerfaust articles are a bit fanboyish because they like to make something definitive out of almost nothing but rumour or misinterpreted chatter. Anything bigger than an A220-500 would be a waste of time as it would be a flying noodle. It sounds like the super stretches were mentioned because that’s what the writer wishes they would make in their fantasy. More realistically an A220-500 simple stretch would be run though the computer, then a payload increase/ range increase of the other variants as well as applied to the 500 as well and there you have 4 variants tested in the computer. There was also the idea at one point that Bombardier floated of opting to add landing gear doors, I think particularly if they stretched it, but that would be a weird mod to do.


Can you please explain why the A320 will only become less competitive against the A321 or the 737-8 if it ever flies again?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13462
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:36 pm

I think a A220-500 is likely, foreseen in the design. Using longer fuselages, you probably run into trade-off's in practical range, runway performance etc. Suitability for replacing A320s depends on the operator. E.g. if it has or has not an extensive AKH infrastructure and payload range requirements from it's network.
Last edited by keesje on Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
TheWorm123
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:47 pm

Why does a “A220-900” just sounds like a tail strike waiting to happen?
752 753 A332
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:05 pm

There is a lot of news on Fliegerfaust, and a lot of rubbish. I remember when he announced that Airbus was about to buy the CRJ program.
Caravelle lover
 
Antaras
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:32 pm

The A227/229 will look like some stupid long and thin worm which's always ready to 'get' a tailstrike
DREAM)LINER
 
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:42 pm

I can understand the need for the A220-500, but what's the point of the -700 and -900 when Airbus already has the capacity with the A320 and A321?
 
ewt340
Posts: 908
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:48 pm

The -700/-900 would Definitely need new wings and better reinforcement. Unless they plan for these plane to fly 500nmi.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 2130
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:51 pm

PepeTheFrog wrote:
I can understand the need for the A220-500, but what's the point of the -700 and -900 when Airbus already has the capacity with the A320 and A321?


A lot lighter and more efficient on the vast Majority of Single Aisle Routes that are flown everday less than 1,500nm.

Sorry I didn't post this link properly earlier - they have renderings of the different lengths https://www.fliegerfaust.com/new-airbus ... 78587.html

Yes - it would be pretty long and thin - but how long could they stretch it before Rotation angle was an issue without raising the gear?

Could they make A321 style changes to the wing (vs A320) to bump up the MTOW as it's pretty close to the Code C gate size Max of 36m at 35.1M without resorting to a whole new wing?
 
ShamrockBoi330
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:28 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:56 pm

I found it interesting from the 500 point of view, closer to reality than any previously assumed?

and I don't think anyone is taking the 700/900 as gospel insider knowledge, but more of a discussion topic, a "what if" if you like. we all know what Flugerfaust is like so no need for everyone to keep pointing out the obvious really!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10591
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:12 pm

Like others said, A220-500, sure, that might/will happen. It would be more efficient than the A320NEO, abeit less range, but for most operations probably ok. The A220-700/900, no way, don't see that happening.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 2130
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:25 pm

So how long could they make the 500 then without lengthening the gear or modifying the wing too much? Is the wing big enough/gear strong enough for say 180 Seats and say 2,700-2,800 NM range?
 
VV
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:09 pm

This is a very strange discussion.

What the hell is this gibberish?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:41 pm

Elementalism wrote:
As for 700/900 At some point it is less efficient to build a 5 across vs 6 across. The length of the aircraft becomes an issue.


The A220-300 is already as long as a 737-800/A320. The A220-500 will be as long as the A321, but sits closer to the ground. To avoid tail strikes, it will have to take off and land at higher speeds. Although not as bad as the 737-900ER, it will begin to suffer from the same. Don't expect LCY performance from the -500.

The A220-700 will never happen. That monstrosity will be as long as a 757-300, but more narrow. At this point you will be adding weight in order to strengthen the fuselage. It will suffer from tail strike issues. It just isn't feasible. A -900 is even more laughable.
 
TObound
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:30 pm

The problem with fliegerfaust is that he takes every rumour he hears at the bar to well beyond logical conclusion.

So they've activated a computing cluster to study the -500, -700 and -900. In his mind, they are planning on building all those models. In reality, they are studying them so they have data for corporate decisionmaking and maybe marketing. The data is also valuable to see what a competitor could do with a similarly configured aircraft. This does not mean in any way at all they are committed to building those models. And I would bet several paycheques that the -700 and -900 will never happen for all the reasons that others have said here.

He also talks about how they flight test team is moving back to Montreal. I don't see why Bombardier and Airbus would do this. I could see them dispatching the personnel they need to support a new A225 model. But why move the whole centre/team? And why even discuss this so early?
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:27 am

Wasn't it just 6 months or a year ago that many posters asserted that Airbus would never allow the 500 because it would poach orders from the A320? Now, the 500 is a virtual certainty and speculation abounds about further stretches?

My, how times have changed.
 
Utah744
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:42 am

Answer to the OP. Long, longer, and ridiculously long.
You are never too old to learn something stupid
 
Palumboism
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:02 am

Utah744 wrote:
Answer to the OP. Long, longer, and ridiculously long.


This is the most probable case. Remember, half of the A220 program is owned by Bombardier investors who are looking for a return on their investment.

Also, Bombardier had already patented the CS500, CS600, CS700, CS800, and CS900 names. Which means stretching was in the plans all along and Bombardier knows how to stretch an airplane.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9882
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:13 am

Palumboism wrote:
Utah744 wrote:
Answer to the OP. Long, longer, and ridiculously long.


This is the most probable case. Remember, half of the A220 program is owned by Bombardier investors who are looking for a return on their investment.

That return of investment will be selling their stake to Airbus in future, not new variants.

Also, Bombardier had already patented the CS500, CS600, CS700, CS800, and CS900 names. Which means stretching was in the plans all along and Bombardier knows how to stretch an airplane.


That doesn’t mean BBD was seriously interested in building a CS600-900 (CS500 was always on the back burner), or that any serious CS600-CS900 would have been a stretched CS100-500; BBD might have been planning for CSx00 to be their new nomenclature, like Boeing and the 7x7 and Airbus and the A3x0. BBD could have been saving it for future re-engines. Companies do things like this all the time to protect their IP. BBD did not want somebody coming along creating a “CS800” taking advantage of the known C-series name. I bet you Airbus has A360, A370, and A390 all saved too. Ditto Boeing and the 797.
 
T4thH
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:20 am

SteelChair wrote:
Wasn't it just 6 months or a year ago that many posters asserted that Airbus would never allow the 500 because it would poach orders from the A320? Now, the 500 is a virtual certainty and speculation abounds about further stretches?

My, how times have changed.

Yes, but this is a problem with many boards; as also here in the A.net. People do not understand or are just not willed to understand, that Airbus is not Boeing and what Boeing would do is not the way, Airbus is working. Of course, Airbus has only bought the A220 program to cancel it, they would never cannibalize their own program/A319/A320 they would never...bla bla bla...Sorry, this is Airbus and not Boeing.

Airbus and Airbus officials have now regular and more than once for around one year stated and confirmed, that it is not any more a question, if the A220-500 will be build, it is only a question, when. And also the "when" has been already explained, Airbus will first ramp up the A220 production and when and as soon, they see/believe, problems of ramping up of the production are solved, ramping up is working, they will start. As several customers (as example Korean Al, Air France and Air Baltic) have already stated the interest for the A220-500, we will possibly see it even earlier. Airbus is a company, willed to make their customers happy. If they ask for something and it seems liable for Airbus, resources are available, Airbus will do it.

Perhaps we shall finally just start to believe Airbus and their statements; as said, Airbus is not Boeing and as example the well known NMA story, ongoing since 2010? This is Boeing, not Airbus. As said, Airbus tries to make their customers happy, Boeing their share holders. I am sure, we will see a statement, if they will do it and when. And if an A220-500 is not possible or liable (as example no upgrade of the PW1500G engine is possible), I am sure, also then we will see/hear an Airbus statement.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:57 am

An a220-900? See the 737 Max... The -500 should be as far as it should go. Maybe the -700, but I wouldn’t try to package range and payload all in one at that point, unless your power plant resembles the PW2000...
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:57 am

I think a.net posters get bonkers in unnecessary discussions. Yes, I know some people love the A220 and think it is the world beating narrow body and now it should replace everything, especially the A320 family.
People just seem to forget things.
The A220 is a 5 across narrow body and the A320 a 6 across. There is some area where they overlap, but by design the A220 is smaller and the A320 is bigger and we can add, at the same length.
A simple look shows us that the A220-300 with a length of 38.7 m offers a space for maximum 160 passengers.
The A320, at a length of 37.57 m, more than a meter shorter than the A220-300 offers max 186 passenger.

There is talk about a A220-500. I have not seen a definite size of that frame but we can look at the A220-300 and imagine a stretch. If the stretch is to the length of an A321, I would say that is the absolute maximum, that would mean a stretch of 5.80 m.
To get comparable passenger numbers to the A320 the stretch needs to be 5 rows at least. 5 rows at 29 inch gives us about 3.70. That stretch would give the A220-500 a length of 42.4, still a sensible length for a A220. Let us add one row more to bring the stretch to 6 rows. That would need about 4.4 m for a whole length of 43.1. 7 would mean 43,9 m whole length. That does not leave space for a sensible stretch to make a A220-700.

That is it. That is were it would end. No A220-700, A220-900 or A220-1000.

The CRJ ends with the 1000 at 39.1 m. The DC9, MD80 series, a 5 across. tops out at 45.03 and both frames have the advantage of having a lot of weight in the aft end, therefore the MLG wheels further back and therefore less danger of a tail strike, when reaching that length.

Designing the A220 into a tail strike danger zone makes no logical sense.

The A220-500 will top out the size of the A220 range, be it a 5, 6, or 7 row stretch. Everything above will need a wider cabin. And there Airbus offers the A320 family line.
Perhaps the advent of a A220-500 will lead to a slight stretch of the A320, to keep a size difference.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14380
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:13 am

RalXWB wrote:
Can you please explain why the A320 will only become less competitive against the A321 or the 737-8 if it ever flies again?


I don’t think such sweeping statements will be true for all airlines. Low cost or feeder airlines which don’t carry much freight I would see be very interested in the A220 as the A320 hold would be mainly empty, and your paying for that empty space when buying and operating the aircraft.

I can foresee a major update to the A320/A330 to bring the avionics in line with the A350.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13462
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:29 am

I think most agree a good A220-500 seems feasible, MTOW, ground clearance and demand seem ok. And Airbus is referecing itself. A very long time ago, I made a CS900 slide, just for fun & added 757-300 and other stretches for reference.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/349 ... ed-public/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Jomar777
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:04 am

VV wrote:
This is a very strange discussion.

What the hell is this gibberish?


I would tend to agree. The -500 is already a slight figment of imagination since it would eat into the A320 but the -700 and the -900 are way beyond.

Having said that, though, and trying to take it as face value, what it might (a big might here...) be happening are tests towards see how far a A220 coujld go in matters of strech towards aligning what Airbus has already learned on the A320 family in regards of shrinking (namely A318).

Why? Allied these two studies might show Airbus actually planning for a NMA to cater for the whole range (or most of it) -i possible. In another words, create a model that would replace both the A220 and A320 and give it commonality across the board.

Althouhg, if you feel I am speaking utter bonkers here, you are welcome to say so and at least part of myself might tend to agree
 
User avatar
cougar15
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:03 am

Antaras wrote:
The A227/229 will look like some stupid long and thin worm which's always ready to 'get' a tailstrike


Does it, I don't think they look much different that later MD80´s with 5 abreast that we all so loved for years. So I guess it has been done before. Will it happen? I doubt it, my money is on a 500 only.
some you lose, others you can´t win!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:29 am

cougar15 wrote:
Antaras wrote:
The A227/229 will look like some stupid long and thin worm which's always ready to 'get' a tailstrike


Does it, I don't think they look much different that later MD80´s with 5 abreast that we all so loved for years. So I guess it has been done before. Will it happen? I doubt it, my money is on a 500 only.


As an A220-500 would only be about 2 meters shorter than the longest MD80, why do you thing it could be stretched twice more?
 
Fixinthe757
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:48 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:29 am

real easy and the same as every other higher numbered plane......longer!
 
Jamie514
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 4:36 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:38 am

mjoelnir wrote:

The CRJ ends with the 1000 at 39.1 m. The DC9, MD80 series, a 5 across. tops out at 45.03 and both frames have the advantage of having a lot of weight in the aft end, therefore the MLG wheels further back and therefore less danger of a tail strike, when reaching that length.


This isn't a great comparison for the argument of whether the A220 configuration can be stretched in a similar way.

People tend to forget that the A220 also has its own advantage of a relatively higher ground clearance compared to those rear-engined aircraft. It is comfortably hanging its GTF under the wing, with room to spare.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13462
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:58 am

Jamie514 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The CRJ ends with the 1000 at 39.1 m. The DC9, MD80 series, a 5 across. tops out at 45.03 and both frames have the advantage of having a lot of weight in the aft end, therefore the MLG wheels further back and therefore less danger of a tail strike, when reaching that length.


This isn't a great comparison for the argument of whether the A220 configuration can be stretched in a similar way.

People tend to forget that the A220 also has its own advantage of a relatively higher ground clearance compared to those rear-engined aircraft. It is comfortably hanging its GTF under the wing, with room to spare.


It has.

Image
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
DartHerald
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:06 pm

Does it matter that an A220-500 would eat into A320 sales? Presumably it would eat into 737 sales too. Airbus can't build A320s fast enough and there is still plenty of scope for ramping up A220 production.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13462
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:11 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Does it matter that an A220-500 would eat into A320 sales? Presumably it would eat into 737 sales too. Airbus can't build A320s fast enough and there is still plenty of scope for ramping up A220 production.


Over time you could imagine focussing the A320 series on 180-250 seats and A220 on 120-180 seats.

Standarizing on the enhanced fuel, flap systems of the XLR.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9882
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:12 pm

Jamie514 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The CRJ ends with the 1000 at 39.1 m. The DC9, MD80 series, a 5 across. tops out at 45.03 and both frames have the advantage of having a lot of weight in the aft end, therefore the MLG wheels further back and therefore less danger of a tail strike, when reaching that length.


This isn't a great comparison for the argument of whether the A220 configuration can be stretched in a similar way.

People tend to forget that the A220 also has its own advantage of a relatively higher ground clearance compared to those rear-engined aircraft. It is comfortably hanging its GTF under the wing, with room to spare.


The MD90 actually has more rear ground clearance than most people realize, thanks to its slightly larger main gear vs the DC-9/MD-80 giving it nose down pitch on the ground. With the MD-90 I believe rear clearance is more than the 737.
 
seb76
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:02 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:20 pm

Antaras wrote:
The A227/229 will look like some stupid long and thin worm which's always ready to 'get' a tailstrike

They just have to shape the fuselage like a banana. Voilà, problem solved !
 
leyland1989
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:26 pm

I think A220-500 will happen, it's just a matter of when.

Many A319 are still early in their replacement cycle, when that happens and A220 (-100/-300) gain market share, A220-500 will make sense to be A320's successor without worrying over eating into the already shrinking A320 sales.

Many recent sales of the A320 family has been mainly A321, I believe the future of A320 family will be mostly lie on A321 and potential A322 while A220 will fill in the lower end, replacing A320 and A319 as it has already been doing so.
Airbus:319,320,321,332,333,343,345,346,359,388
Boeing: 717,734,738,739,753,74R,742,743,744,74E,748,763,772,773,77E,77L,77W,788,789
Misc:AT5,CN1,CNJ,CR2,CR7,CR9,DH8,ER4,ERD,E70,E75,E90,M11,S20
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1877
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:31 pm

I think Airbus could make an argument at this point that stretching the A220 to the -500 is justifiable for their product line as a 319 replacement. It would be better than the 319 that isn’t selling worth a hoot. Likely push sales for the smaller A220s for fleet commonality reasons. Going bigger to a -700/900? Not so much, leave that for the A320/321/32x replacement.
Last edited by DL717 on Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
Eiszeit
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:50 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:32 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Does it matter that an A220-500 would eat into A320 sales? Presumably it would eat into 737 sales too. Airbus can't build A320s fast enough and there is still plenty of scope for ramping up A220 production.


As long as every A220-500 brings some profit eating into A320 sales or even the backlog is no problem. Every lost A320 frees a slot for another one maybe even better an A321, one of its derivates or a hypothetical A322. The rather low production rate of the A220 is a bigger problem than cannibalizing some A320.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 2130
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:57 pm

keesje wrote:
Jamie514 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The CRJ ends with the 1000 at 39.1 m. The DC9, MD80 series, a 5 across. tops out at 45.03 and both frames have the advantage of having a lot of weight in the aft end, therefore the MLG wheels further back and therefore less danger of a tail strike, when reaching that length.


This isn't a great comparison for the argument of whether the A220 configuration can be stretched in a similar way.

People tend to forget that the A220 also has its own advantage of a relatively higher ground clearance compared to those rear-engined aircraft. It is comfortably hanging its GTF under the wing, with room to spare.


It has.

Image
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220



It seems like up to 45-46M actually wouldn't be a stretch too far.

The MD-90 at a fuselage height of 142" is 46.5M with those big heavy engines hanging off the back and a lot of the fuselage in front of the wing.

The 737 is 156" High and the A320 series 163".

The A220 at 146" high is built from Carbon which is arguably stiffer and easier to stretch than an Aluminum tube.

Approximately half the stretch would be in front of the wing/ half behind - rotation angles shouldn't be that big of a problem - if you are talking basically 3M in front and 3M behind.

Assume that you stretch the A220 to 45M from 38.7m - or 6.3M or 248" - which just happens to be 8 rows at 31" Seat Pitch.

The A220 can comfortably take 145 Y seats (29 rows at 31" seat Pitch).

That would put an 45M A220 at 185 Y seats at 31" seat pitch. An A320 is about 175 seats at the same seat pitch https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Aer_L ... s_A320.php

How much would that extra fuselage length weigh? It seems like the 300 only gained 500KG per meter over the 100. So @ 6.3M call it 3,150KG - but add a little to take it to 3,500KG.

That would put it's OEW weight at about 40.5T vs 50.1T on the A320 NEO - that seems like a lot lighter (but not as capable of course) and a big efficiency advantage on the Majority of Single Aisle route's that are under 1,500NM.

How far could it go in Range maxed out in Y at 185 seats and 31" pitch?

How much more efficient would it be than A320 NEO/738?
Last edited by morrisond on Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9882
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:02 pm

morrisond wrote:
The A220 at 146" high is built from Carbon which is arguably stiffer and easier to stretch than an Aluminum tube.

The A220 has an aluminum fuselage, not carbon composite.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 2130
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:17 pm

Polot wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The A220 at 146" high is built from Carbon which is arguably stiffer and easier to stretch than an Aluminum tube.

The A220 has an aluminum fuselage, not carbon composite.


So it is - Aluminum Lithium - I had forgotten that. Looks like Composite almost everything else.

Still if they could stretch an MD90 years ago an A220 to 45M these days should be possible.
 
TObound
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:18 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Wasn't it just 6 months or a year ago that many posters asserted that Airbus would never allow the 500 because it would poach orders from the A320? Now, the 500 is a virtual certainty and speculation abounds about further stretches?

My, how times have changed.


I don't get how anybody can say with such certainty that times have changed. It's not like there's any announcement launching the A225. A study doesn't mean much.

Also, the last few comments/rumours seem to indicated that the program won't be profitable for at least another 3-4 years and that this was driving reluctance to launch the 225. I could see that being the case.

There's also the issue of program ownership and any airbus success on the A220 driving up the cost of buying out Investment Quebec and Bombardier's shares. We don't know how that math works out for Airbus management.

There's bound to be concerns about commonality. It's not an Airbus airplane with common parts, cockpits, etc. There's only so much they can do to boost commonality. Now, that doesn't mean Airbus doesn't like the plane or the design or won't sell it. But this does impact how much the A220 can be used to drive follow-on business. And that is undoubtedly driving how Airbus markets the A220 to different customers.

With all this in mind, I think enthusiasm needs to be tempered with a dose of reality. The current order backlog takes them to 2024. Having all options exercised, takes them to beyond 2025. Airbus has a lot of time to get that A225 in to service. And that means there's no need to announce anything before they have a chat with Bombardier and Investment Quebec about program share and before they sort out the rest of their narrowbody and mid-market strategies.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:20 pm

The point that some posters here did not get, that it is more difficult to stretch the A220 than the DC9 MD80 MD90. Because of the high weight of the engine in the back, the MLGs are further aft, making a tailstrike much less likely than on the A220 at the same length.
So I have my doubts seeing the A220 being stretched to the same length as a MD90 with 46.51 m.
The A321 is 44.51 and has a longer MLG than the A220. The point is the maximum rotation angle, that will be more critical for the A220 at the same length.

With the frame standing on the ground, draw a line from the contact point of the MLG with the ground to the tail. The angle of this line with the ground gives you the maximum rotation angle. When the MLG wheels move aft, this angle increases with the same length of the frame.

You can also have a look at the weights of the MD80 and MD90. With increasing length and capacity the 6 across frame gains an advantage over the 5 across frame.
 
TObound
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:32 pm

DL717 wrote:
I think Airbus could make an argument at this point that stretching the A220 to the -500 is justifiable for their product line as a 319 replacement. It would be better than the 319 that isn’t selling worth a hoot. Likely push sales for the smaller A220s for fleet commonality reasons. Going bigger to a -700/900? Not so much, leave that for the A320/321/32x replacement.


The A223 is already larger/higher capacity than the 319. The hypothetical A225 would be the replacement for the A320.
 
TObound
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:42 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The point that some posters here did not get, that it is more difficult to stretch the A220 than the DC9 MD80 MD90. Because of the high weight of the engine in the back, the MLGs are further aft, making a tailstrike much less likely than on the A220 at the same length.
So I have my doubts seeing the A220 being stretched to the same length as a MD90 with 46.51 m.
The A321 is 44.51 and has a longer MLG than the A220. The point is the maximum rotation angle, that will be more critical for the A220 at the same length.

With the frame standing on the ground, draw a line from the contact point of the MLG with the ground to the tail. The angle of this line with the ground gives you the maximum rotation angle. When the MLG wheels move aft, this angle increases with the same length of the frame.

You can also have a look at the weights of the MD80 and MD90. With increasing length and capacity the 6 across frame gains an advantage over the 5 across frame.


Well put. I don't think most people really get how long an A220 already is. The 223 is longer than the 320 already. These aren't small airplanes.

I think any stretch beyond 42-43m is probably going to be challenging. I get the feeling that this is the ballpark that BBD originally planned the CS500 for and Airbus is just doing analysis to see what they can extract out of the airframe and what any competitor could achieve with a 5-abreast frame. They probably also want to know what the performance numbers are like and what the economics work out to and how that would impact the business case of their 320 line and its evolutions. I am thinking Airbus would want to develop an A225 on the larger end of the minimum effort development range, to be a true 320 replacement, while they move the 320 family up in size to a base model that is between the 320 and 321 and a second larger model that is between the 321 and 753.
 
TObound
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:03 pm

Eiszeit wrote:
DartHerald wrote:
Does it matter that an A220-500 would eat into A320 sales? Presumably it would eat into 737 sales too. Airbus can't build A320s fast enough and there is still plenty of scope for ramping up A220 production.


As long as every A220-500 brings some profit eating into A320 sales or even the backlog is no problem. Every lost A320 frees a slot for another one maybe even better an A321, one of its derivates or a hypothetical A322. The rather low production rate of the A220 is a bigger problem than cannibalizing some A320.


There is the issue of sharing half the profit with Bombardier and Investment Quebec. And also the issue that the program as a whole isn't profitable yet. This all can be worked out. But it will take a few years. Any plan to extend the 220 has to be undertaken in conjunction with plans for the 320 lineup and discussions about the program's ownership structure.

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