Aside from Broughton (Wales) Prestwick (Scotland) and Spirit might be an interesting move. Still UK but not the old place. Airbus seems to want to reorganize and Spirit could be possible.
However I am not sure if outsourcing is the way to go anymore as one outsources the profits and the know how as well it seems.

Flyglobal wrote:

I think there is more going on. In Europe there are plans that airbus is consolidating Body and Frame work in two (a French and a German) companies. Along with that I expect that they are kind of reengineering the tube design and assembly in a way more efficient setup, just as we know that Boeing is exploring new manufacturing technology and that this is key for any new model.

So, I expect that while Boing at one time has to drop the egg on their next plane, Airbus will 'piece by piece' or in larger steps reengineer the A320 completely new.

From Status today until XLR to
1) New Wing Option (I expect 2 wings, 1 folding and 1 none folding for shorter ranges)- this includes preparing for next 2 engine generations)
2) New Body Option - an updated Body, mainly optimized for manufacturing efficiency - moving Work from Final Assembly to pre assembly, so that at Final assembly we will see a Click, click, click based assembly process of far completed sections
3) New Cockpit/ Controls Option - with significantly updated Cockpit design incl. 1 Pilot design option).

All can be brought to market together, or in years difference. If Boing doesn’t Move I think they will bring it one after the other.

When we look at the narrow body, Airbus does anyway more of the preassembly themselves. For the A320 family there are pre assembly lines in XFW and in Saint Nazaire and Nantes.
Airbus owns the wing factory in the UK, they own the wing finishing line in Bremen, high lift devices. The vertical stabilizer in Stade and so on.
IMO Airbus mainly talking about reorganization after they have been buying some of the suppliers in the last years, mainly companies doing some of the CFRP and GFRP work.
Airbus went actual the opposite way than Boeing with the 787, reducing outsourcing.

Airbus has been doing constant adjustment both to the A320 family frames themselves as well as the manufacturing process. The preassembly work on the center and aft fuselage in XFW has been automated, Saint Nazaire is being automated. The new final assembly line in XFW should be the prototype of future FAL.

There is no reason for Airbus to do two wings at the same time. They can do a new one for a A321+ and A322, run up production and than look again at the older wing. The fourth line in XFW should be flexible enough to not only take different fuselages but also different wings.
Changes to the fuselage have been done. For example moving over to Metal printed parts. First small titanium parts for the door locking mechanism and than bigger parts like dividers Every time saving some weight. Airbus has done the development of a CFRP wingbox. I could imagine a CFRP pressure bulkhead.

I thing we will not see a new cockpit in the near future. Airbus has been trying to keep commonality between the different families. Not only to make it easier for pilots to switch between types, but also to be able to move developments done for one family over to the other families.
One could of course imagine a common FBW with different user interfaces, offering for example the current joystick with a back driven joystick.

Sokes wrote:

A 2,8 m stretch would bring the A321 to B757-200 length..

With a 2.8m stretch the cabin would be 1.15m longer than the 752s, so a 1.65m stretch would do for the same cabin length.

best regards
Thomas

Revelation wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Airbus is trying to squeeze out Boeing with an already existing aircraft family and engine by adding a new wing. Airbus knows Boeing can't respond with another 737 family or the 787. So Boeing would totally have to MAX the 767 or go with a clean sheet design; either way costs billions making the NMA market much less palatable for them.

Airbus has been working on a new wing since 2015 via a R&D program scheduled to run till 2023.

Everyone except Bloomberg's editors seems to understand that.

There's no real upside to Airbus launching a new model any time soon.

Boeing is up to its eyeballs in work (MAX7, MAX10, 779) through 2023 and Airbus has orders for every A320 family member it can build for several years.

But hey, it's a slow news day...

Agree with Revelation enthusiasm took over a bit here, e.g. on a A322.

What is interesting is that in Europe majorities are growing that increasingly don't accept the airline green-washing efforts (biofuel, electric flight, paper coffee cups and fruity cabin attendants).
If France (centralist) and Germany (green leftists) start agreeing on serious pollution reduction, Spain joins an Italy doesn't want to be left out, slowly pressure can start growing on the airlines (saved by those governments) and airlines can start putting pressure on OE's to come up with solution to keep their passengers.

tommy1808 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

A 2,8 m stretch would bring the A321 to B757-200 length..

With a 2.8m stretch the cabin would be 1.15m longer than the 752s, so a 1.65m stretch would do for the same cabin length.

best regards
Thomas

I was just picking an example. I don't believe in stretching aircrafts too much. One could argue that since 7 abreast isn't an economic fuselage, one should make an exception for 6 abreast.
Anyway at 47,3 m the length the fuselage would be nearly 12 x fuselage diameter.

The biggest Embraer E2 has a 35 m Aluminium wing with 61,5 t MTOW. So I think a 40 m folding wing is needed for above 100 t MTOW. I don't see much MTOW or capacity increase with a folding wing. It's needed even if everything else stays the same (fuselage, MTOW, ...).

The problem with folding wings starts when the outside parts have movables. You will not be able to use the outer wing volume for tanks as well and need heavy, secure bars and links. There is a price to pay. Tiny folding wingtips are easier but they gain less parking space.

Of course has Airbus researched folding wings. But IMO moving a frame from gate category D to C is not worth it. The smaller frames in the A320 family will just stay with the smaller 35.8 m wing that fits inside C. Even a new wing will stay there.
The A321+ and A322 will get a longer wing, move up to D, so what, there are plenty of D gates.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A321+ and A322 will get a longer wing, move up to D, so what, there are plenty of D gates.

In the US yes. But what about China and all the new airports in emerging economies? I believe Europe doesn't have many D gates.
Anyway a 40 m folded wing will do, so will around 100 t MTOW.

Rekoff wrote:

Revelation wrote:

There's no real upside to Airbus launching a new model any time soon.

Yes there is. And many have addressed that elephant in the room in previous threads and even this one. You yourself have stated the strength of the NMA/NSA duo would be testing the waters of new production methods and next gen airplane design with the NMA and then scaling pruduction / applying lessons learned to the far more important NSA. You have defended this strategy on many occasions.

Airbus already squeezed some of the NMA's targeted "MoM" market with the 321XLR but it's just scraping the bottom part of that market. First mover advantage is a real thing, not something imagined by self-declared a.net pundits, especially in smaller market segments. The danger in a one-two punch sits in the second punch. A rewinged A322, with about 24 seats extra and similar or better range, would take a siginificant chunk out of the MoM. This would put severe pressure on Boeing to rethink their MoM priorities. Taking on the A322NWO head on would be a risky bet, focussing on the higher end of the MoM would hurt 787 too much. Closing the business-case would become much harder then it already is.

First mover advantage could force Boeings hand for a second time (after the MAX) and vause Boeing to refocus on the NSA first. This would fit Airbus plans much better for a next generation A320 replacement in the 2040-45 timeframe, where it could offer enough advantage vis-a-vis a twenties' tech era 737 replacement. Both Boeing and Airbus have made statements to the extent that the next gen platform and propulsion tech just wont be ready this decade. It's not in Airbus long term interest to let Max bridge that gap.

You are acting as if Boeing doesn't have a FlightGlobal subscription. Clearly they have been tracking what Airbus has been doing with WoT starting in 2015 and consideration of such was already a part of its NMA business plan, which was about to close just before the second tragic crash happened.. Personally I think Boeing would be happy to have Airbus move first. It will validate the market and give NMA a basis for comparison, one I think will often favor the clean sheet tight wide body NMA over the long narrow body A322, a re-incarnation of "the devil's bowling alley". Regardless, it seems like the time line is frozen till at least 2023, maybe later if international and business travel do not rebound completely. In the short term the problem is still too many airplanes, no need for new models any time soon.

Opus99 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Oh well, in an hour or so Simply Flying will have an article regurgitating this one, happy days!

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a322-next-gen/

Like clockwork

A news cycle is born, lol!

Noshow wrote:

The problem with folding wings starts when the outside parts have movables. You will not be able to use the outer wing volume for tanks as well and need heavy, secure bars and links. There is a price to pay. Tiny folding wingtips are easier but they gain less parking space.

I think the problem with folding wingtips is it moves the aileron further inboard which subsequently reduces flap size. Certifying a folding wingtip where the aileron folds is probably nearly impossible for a commercial airplane given the reliability requirements in FAR 25.1309. If the aileron is further inboard, it needs more travel or needs to be larger. A smaller flap span will also result in the need for more complicated (double slotted) flaps to generate sufficient lift for landing which again adds weight and drag.

Revelation wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

Revelation wrote:

There's no real upside to Airbus launching a new model any time soon.

Yes there is. And many have addressed that elephant in the room in previous threads and even this one. You yourself have stated the strength of the NMA/NSA duo would be testing the waters of new production methods and next gen airplane design with the NMA and then scaling pruduction / applying lessons learned to the far more important NSA. You have defended this strategy on many occasions.

Airbus already squeezed some of the NMA's targeted "MoM" market with the 321XLR but it's just scraping the bottom part of that market. First mover advantage is a real thing, not something imagined by self-declared a.net pundits, especially in smaller market segments. The danger in a one-two punch sits in the second punch. A rewinged A322, with about 24 seats extra and similar or better range, would take a siginificant chunk out of the MoM. This would put severe pressure on Boeing to rethink their MoM priorities. Taking on the A322NWO head on would be a risky bet, focussing on the higher end of the MoM would hurt 787 too much. Closing the business-case would become much harder then it already is.

First mover advantage could force Boeings hand for a second time (after the MAX) and vause Boeing to refocus on the NSA first. This would fit Airbus plans much better for a next generation A320 replacement in the 2040-45 timeframe, where it could offer enough advantage vis-a-vis a twenties' tech era 737 replacement. Both Boeing and Airbus have made statements to the extent that the next gen platform and propulsion tech just wont be ready this decade. It's not in Airbus long term interest to let Max bridge that gap.

You are acting as if Boeing doesn't have a FlightGlobal subscription. Clearly they have been tracking what Airbus has been doing with WoT starting in 2015 and consideration of such was already a part of its NMA business plan, which was about to close just before the second tragic crash happened.. Personally I think Boeing would be happy to have Airbus move first. It will validate the market and give NMA a basis for comparison, one I think will often favor the clean sheet tight wide body NMA over the long narrow body A322, a re-incarnation of "the devil's bowling alley". Regardless, it seems like the time line is frozen till at least 2023, maybe later if international and business travel do not rebound completely. In the short term the problem is still too many airplanes, no need for new models any time soon.

I guess they didnt have that subscription in 2010 when Airbus launched the 320NEO? You are acting as if
a) timing doesnt matter. It does. Would American jump ship if the Neo launched two years later? I think we all know the answer to that.
b) development is an open book for the other side. Of course they know about the WoT program but what they don't know is how far along is development, what is performance, and what is production cost? Those three make all the difference between a new aircraft program that will 'win' (favor in your words) the market or one that is too expensive for what it aims to achieve.

First mover advantage means comparable performance / cost might still give you a decisive advantage you can expand on as we saw with the Neo.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Airbus is trying to squeeze out Boeing with an already existing aircraft family and engine by adding a new wing. Airbus knows Boeing can't respond with another 737 family or the 787. So Boeing would totally have to MAX the 767 or go with a clean sheet design; either way costs billions making the NMA market much less palatable for them.

Airbus has been working on a new wing since 2015 via a R&D program scheduled to run till 2023.

Everyone except Bloomberg's editors seems to understand that.

There's no real upside to Airbus launching a new model any time soon.

Boeing is up to its eyeballs in work (MAX7, MAX10, 779) through 2023 and Airbus has orders for every A320 family member it can build for several years.

But hey, it's a slow news day...

Agree with Revelation enthusiasm took over a bit here, e.g. on a A322.

What is interesting is that in Europe majorities are growing that increasingly don't accept the airline green-washing efforts (biofuel, electric flight, paper coffee cups and fruity cabin attendants).
If France (centralist) and Germany (green leftists) start agreeing on serious pollution reduction, Spain joins an Italy doesn't want to be left out, slowly pressure can start growing on the airlines (saved by those governments) and airlines can start putting pressure on OE's to come up with solution to keep their passengers.

They have long agreed on what needs to be done when it comes to the auto industry yet when it comes to making those changes, no one does anything.

The EU is a mess because no one wants to be in a situation where they are making those decisions in isolation and possibly losing jobs alone.

Rekoff wrote:

First mover advantage means comparable performance / cost might still give you a decisive advantage you can expand on as we saw with the Neo.

Thanks for your post, I think you are making good points, it's OK if we don't see things the same way.

I think NEO's advantages came from its own qualities rather than being first to market. If being first was decisive, AA would not have ordered MAX in large numbers like they did.

I agree NEO triggered Boeing to respond with MAX, and IMO it'd be fine if A322 triggers Boeing to respond with NMA, because I think its own qualities will give it an advantage over A322 in many important ways.

Rekoff wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

Yes there is. And many have addressed that elephant in the room in previous threads and even this one. You yourself have stated the strength of the NMA/NSA duo would be testing the waters of new production methods and next gen airplane design with the NMA and then scaling pruduction / applying lessons learned to the far more important NSA. You have defended this strategy on many occasions.

Airbus already squeezed some of the NMA's targeted "MoM" market with the 321XLR but it's just scraping the bottom part of that market. First mover advantage is a real thing, not something imagined by self-declared a.net pundits, especially in smaller market segments. The danger in a one-two punch sits in the second punch. A rewinged A322, with about 24 seats extra and similar or better range, would take a siginificant chunk out of the MoM. This would put severe pressure on Boeing to rethink their MoM priorities. Taking on the A322NWO head on would be a risky bet, focussing on the higher end of the MoM would hurt 787 too much. Closing the business-case would become much harder then it already is.

First mover advantage could force Boeings hand for a second time (after the MAX) and vause Boeing to refocus on the NSA first. This would fit Airbus plans much better for a next generation A320 replacement in the 2040-45 timeframe, where it could offer enough advantage vis-a-vis a twenties' tech era 737 replacement. Both Boeing and Airbus have made statements to the extent that the next gen platform and propulsion tech just wont be ready this decade. It's not in Airbus long term interest to let Max bridge that gap.

You are acting as if Boeing doesn't have a FlightGlobal subscription. Clearly they have been tracking what Airbus has been doing with WoT starting in 2015 and consideration of such was already a part of its NMA business plan, which was about to close just before the second tragic crash happened.. Personally I think Boeing would be happy to have Airbus move first. It will validate the market and give NMA a basis for comparison, one I think will often favor the clean sheet tight wide body NMA over the long narrow body A322, a re-incarnation of "the devil's bowling alley". Regardless, it seems like the time line is frozen till at least 2023, maybe later if international and business travel do not rebound completely. In the short term the problem is still too many airplanes, no need for new models any time soon.

I guess they didnt have that subscription in 2010 when Airbus launched the 320NEO? You are acting as if
a) timing doesnt matter. It does. Would American jump ship if the Neo launched two years later? I think we all know the answer to that.
b) Development is an open book for the other side. Of course they know about the WoT program but what they don't know is how far along is development, what is performance, and what is production cost? Those three make all the difference between a new aircraft program that will 'win' (favor in your words) the market or one that is too expensive for what it aims to achieve.

First mover advantage means comparable performance / cost might still give you a decisive advantage you can expand on as we saw with the Neo.

Pretty sure Boeing has been doing simulations since Airbus 's WOT came to light. They have a pretty good idea what kind of numbers this wing could yield. May be the reason for the NMA delay. Boeing has to go back to the CAD and rework their NMA.

Airbus is doing the same simulating Boeing's concept like their Truss concept.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The problem with folding wings starts when the outside parts have movables. You will not be able to use the outer wing volume for tanks as well and need heavy, secure bars and links. There is a price to pay. Tiny folding wingtips are easier but they gain less parking space.

I think the problem with folding wingtips is it moves the aileron further inboard which subsequently reduces flap size. Certifying a folding wingtip where the aileron folds is probably nearly impossible for a commercial airplane given the reliability requirements in FAR 25.1309. If the aileron is further inboard, it needs more travel or needs to be larger. A smaller flap span will also result in the need for more complicated (double slotted) flaps to generate sufficient lift for landing which again adds weight and drag.

What if the ailerons stay where they are, and what is currently the sharklet is turned horizontal before takeoff, and folded up after landing? No fuel or flight control surfaces in/on the sharklet today?

x

william wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

Revelation wrote:

You are acting as if Boeing doesn't have a FlightGlobal subscription. Clearly they have been tracking what Airbus has been doing with WoT starting in 2015 and consideration of such was already a part of its NMA business plan, which was about to close just before the second tragic crash happened.. Personally I think Boeing would be happy to have Airbus move first. It will validate the market and give NMA a basis for comparison, one I think will often favor the clean sheet tight wide body NMA over the long narrow body A322, a re-incarnation of "the devil's bowling alley". Regardless, it seems like the time line is frozen till at least 2023, maybe later if international and business travel do not rebound completely. In the short term the problem is still too many airplanes, no need for new models any time soon.

I guess they didnt have that subscription in 2010 when Airbus launched the 320NEO? You are acting as if
a) timing doesnt matter. It does. Would American jump ship if the Neo launched two years later? I think we all know the answer to that.
b) Development is an open book for the other side. Of course they know about the WoT program but what they don't know is how far along is development, what is performance, and what is production cost? Those three make all the difference between a new aircraft program that will 'win' (favor in your words) the market or one that is too expensive for what it aims to achieve.

First mover advantage means comparable performance / cost might still give you a decisive advantage you can expand on as we saw with the Neo.

Pretty sure Boeing has been doing simulations since Airbus 's WOT came to light. They have a pretty good idea what kind of numbers this wing could yield. May be the reason for the NMA delay. Boeing has to go back to the CAD and rework their NMA.

Airbus is doing the same simulating Boeing's concept like their Truss concept.

The B-17 had a truss, no?

Revelation wrote:

Clearly they have been tracking what Airbus has been doing with WoT starting in 2015 and consideration of such was already a part of its NMA business plan

Was it?

Revelation wrote:

which was about to close just before the second tragic crash happened

Was it?

Revelation wrote:

Personally I think Boeing would be happy to have Airbus move first. It will validate the market

Will it?

I think there's some assumptions here that are almost certainly less factual than presented here.

In the case of the latter, anything that Airbus launch based on the A320 will be aimed at invalidating the market, at least as far as a new entrant goes.

And I hear a lot of people stating that the NMA business case was about to close prior to the crash/Covid.
Pretty much everyone except Boeing themselves, curiously enough.

Dunno. It might have been.
But I've seen no evidence presented that gets past wishful thinking
If I've missed it, then my bad

Rgds

Noshow wrote:

The problem with folding wings starts when the outside parts have movables. You will not be able to use the outer wing volume for tanks as well and need heavy, secure bars and links. There is a price to pay. Tiny folding wingtips are easier but they gain less parking space.

Airbus follows an incremental innovation process. Every new step, in the continued development of A321/A322, is planned to work together with the previous step, and what ever is coming next.

A new wing for A321/A322 would be long and slim in order to be more aerodynamically efficient. It is likely that there won't be any fuel tanks in the wings. This makes the wing much more simple, and simplicity reduces cost. The new, large rear center tank is not just for the A321 XLR. It is also important for A321/A322 with a new wing, a wing that doesn't have fuel tanks needs a larger center tank.

Further more, by eliminating fuel tanks in the wings, a new wing will also be optimal for hydrogen powered engines. Liquid hydrogen can't be stored in wing tanks.

reidar76 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The problem with folding wings starts when the outside parts have movables. You will not be able to use the outer wing volume for tanks as well and need heavy, secure bars and links. There is a price to pay. Tiny folding wingtips are easier but they gain less parking space.

Airbus follows an incremental innovation process. Every new step, in the continued development of A321/A322, is planned to work together with the previous step, and what ever is coming next.

A new wing for A321/A322 would be long and slim in order to be more aerodynamically efficient. It is likely that there won't be any fuel tanks in the wings. This makes the wing much more simple, and simplicity reduces cost. The new, large rear center tank is not just for the A321 XLR. It is also important for A321/A322 with a new wing, a wing that doesn't have fuel tanks needs a larger center tank.

Further more, by eliminating fuel tanks in the wings, a new wing will also be optimal for hydrogen powered engines. Liquid hydrogen can't be stored in wing tanks.

Yeah...I wouldn’t bet on the new wing not having fuel tanks. The increase in efficiency of the new wing wouldn’t make up for the severe reduction in fuel volume. The point of the new wing is to make the plane more efficient especially for longer flights. I wouldn’t expect a huge step change in the engines to go along with it warranting less fuel capacity.

The wing tanks alone make up almost 2/3rds of the base fuel capacity. Each one is only about 500 liters smaller than the main center tank. Without them your theoretical rewinged A321/A322, with the RCT, would have less fuel than a standard A321neo with zero ACTs. The current A320 wing isn’t hurting the aircraft that much. Rewinging the aircraft is not going to boost efficiency that much. If it did Airbus would have already launched the rewing.

We are a loooong way from liquid hydrogen powered engines on A321 sized commercial jets, if we ever even go there.

Heavierthanair wrote:

G'day

VV wrote:

Will Airbus wings continue to be designed and built in the UK?

Airbus has all the space available where they used to manufacture A380 wings, that should be sufficient for high volume production of a new narrowbody wing. However, Airbus for political reasons may decide to produce any new wing in the EU

Cheers
Peter

Northern Ireland is in the UK, but also for Goods and Services, retains EU status so your 'political' reason would still be adhered to.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Clearly they have been tracking what Airbus has been doing with WoT starting in 2015 and consideration of such was already a part of its NMA business plan

Was it?

If you want to go with the inverse, Boeing would commit to $billions without understanding the competitive response, I can't stop you.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

which was about to close just before the second tragic crash happened

Was it?

Reported in the Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/ ) launch was expected at 2019 Paris Air Show in June 2019, crash happened April 2019, I should have said just after.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Personally I think Boeing would be happy to have Airbus move first. It will validate the market

Will it?

I think there's some assumptions here that are almost certainly less factual than presented here.

In the case of the latter, anything that Airbus launch based on the A320 will be aimed at invalidating the market, at least as far as a new entrant goes.

It'll show that Airbus feels there is a need for a product in the gap between A321XLR and A330-800neo.

william wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

Revelation wrote:

You are acting as if Boeing doesn't have a FlightGlobal subscription. Clearly they have been tracking what Airbus has been doing with WoT starting in 2015 and consideration of such was already a part of its NMA business plan, which was about to close just before the second tragic crash happened.. Personally I think Boeing would be happy to have Airbus move first. It will validate the market and give NMA a basis for comparison, one I think will often favor the clean sheet tight wide body NMA over the long narrow body A322, a re-incarnation of "the devil's bowling alley". Regardless, it seems like the time line is frozen till at least 2023, maybe later if international and business travel do not rebound completely. In the short term the problem is still too many airplanes, no need for new models any time soon.

I guess they didnt have that subscription in 2010 when Airbus launched the 320NEO? You are acting as if
a) timing doesnt matter. It does. Would American jump ship if the Neo launched two years later? I think we all know the answer to that.
b) Development is an open book for the other side. Of course they know about the WoT program but what they don't know is how far along is development, what is performance, and what is production cost? Those three make all the difference between a new aircraft program that will 'win' (favor in your words) the market or one that is too expensive for what it aims to achieve.

First mover advantage means comparable performance / cost might still give you a decisive advantage you can expand on as we saw with the Neo.

Pretty sure Boeing has been doing simulations since Airbus 's WOT came to light. They have a pretty good idea what kind of numbers this wing could yield. May be the reason for the NMA delay. Boeing has to go back to the CAD and rework their NMA.

Airbus is doing the same simulating Boeing's concept like their Truss concept.

Yet their estimates on the neo were way off. I recall slides where they expected the NG to remain competitive.

Revelation wrote:

[
It'll show that Airbus feels there is a need for a product in the gap between A321XLR and A330-800neo.

I dont think many people doubt there is a viable market potential between the A321 and A338/B788. If there is still a viable market between a rewinged A322 and A338/B788 remakns to be seen. Saying the A322 would [actually i]help [/i]the case for the NMA seems rather wishful thinking. I guess the 787 also validates the existence of the A330?

reidar76 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The problem with folding wings starts when the outside parts have movables. You will not be able to use the outer wing volume for tanks as well and need heavy, secure bars and links. There is a price to pay. Tiny folding wingtips are easier but they gain less parking space.

Airbus follows an incremental innovation process. Every new step, in the continued development of A321/A322, is planned to work together with the previous step, and what ever is coming next.

A new wing for A321/A322 would be long and slim in order to be more aerodynamically efficient. It is likely that there won't be any fuel tanks in the wings. This makes the wing much more simple, and simplicity reduces cost. The new, large rear center tank is not just for the A321 XLR. It is also important for A321/A322 with a new wing, a wing that doesn't have fuel tanks needs a larger center tank.

Further more, by eliminating fuel tanks in the wings, a new wing will also be optimal for hydrogen powered engines. Liquid hydrogen can't be stored in wing tanks.

Don’t forget that the weight of the fuel is also used for structural load alleviation in the wing.

A wing with no fuel tanks would be much heavier than a wing with fuel tanks.

VSMUT wrote:

They clearly aren't waiting for Boeing to respond, because Airbus was the one that made the first move with the A320neo in 2010, the A321LR in 2015, the A321XLR in 2019 and now potentially this. They didn't wait for Boeing in any of these cases.

VSMUT wrote:

Boeing attempted to kill off the A330neo in its infancy by pushing discounted 787s.

And they may have more or less succeeded in doing just that... jury's still out.

But considering that even major A330 operators like CX and SQ, and major Airbus buyers like AY, IB, or AF, haven't swung over (or worse, e.g. LH opting for the 787); the A330N's sales haven't fared well thus far, to put it lightly.

Revelation wrote:

If you want to go with the inverse, Boeing would commit to $billions without understanding the competitive response, I can't stop you.

I would expect Boeing to put their best foot forward irrespective of the Airbus response

Revelation wrote:

Reported in the Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/ ) launch was expected at 2019 Paris Air Show in June 2019, crash happened April 2019, I should have said just after.

If you want to consider a journalist's expectations as proof that the business case was about to close then I can't stop you.
Posters on here have been expecting the launch of NMA for nearly a decade
Boeing have never said the business case was about to close as far as I am aware.

Revelation wrote:

It'll show that Airbus feels there is a need for a product in the gap between A321XLR and A330-800neo.

Not really. It'll show them closing the door on a dedicated product between the A321XLR and the A330-800NEO

Rgds

Revelation wrote:

Reported in the Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/ ) launch was expected at 2019 Paris Air Show in June 2019, crash happened April 2019, I should have said just after.

Sorry, Revelation, but that article really doesn't say what you think it does. I'm with Astuteman, I've never seen any direct quote from Boeing saying they ever closed the business case on NMA. Indeed, at that very Paris Air Show, they said were still working on the business case.

From the same reliable reporter:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -air-show/

Both Mounir and McAllister expressed absolute confidence in the recovery of the MAX.
...
Yet both men were noticeably more noncommittal about whether the NMA will go ahead. Each said Boeing is still studying the business case and that there is interest in it from airlines. But clearly there is now a possibility of Boeing taking a different turn.

So, if two senior Boeing execs are to be believed, the business case still wasn't closed in June 2019. There are plenty of other sources that say the same thing.

Revelation wrote:

Reported in the Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/ ) launch was expected at 2019 Paris Air Show in June 2019, crash happened April 2019, I should have said just after..

Just picking up on this one again Rev, (sorry, I didn't have a lot of time to post earlier), when you look at the article you posted, Calhoun says he instructed the engineers to go "back to the drawing board"

Calhoun also disclosed he has instructed engineers to go back to the drawing board for Boeing’s next new airplane. That reset could have a significant strategic impact on the competitive balance with rival Airbus,

.

I would have expected the comments from Calhoun to be far more positive if the "business case was about to close".
Instead Calhoun's comments point much more towards "they weren't ready" in my eyes
Which is why I tend to react when posters post as if it were a done deal, because I think that most of the evidence from Boeing points the other way.
I could be wrong.
From my seat, it's usually you that is likely to make the sort of robust challenge in pursuit of a stronger argument that I have just made, so I was a little bit surprised to see the comment.
Maybe its just me

Rgds

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Reported in the Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/ ) launch was expected at 2019 Paris Air Show in June 2019, crash happened April 2019, I should have said just after.

Sorry, Revelation, but that article really doesn't say what you think it does. I'm with Astuteman, I've never seen any direct quote from Boeing saying they ever closed the business case on NMA. Indeed, at that very Paris Air Show, they said were still working on the business case.

From the same reliable reporter:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -air-show/

Both Mounir and McAllister expressed absolute confidence in the recovery of the MAX.
...
Yet both men were noticeably more noncommittal about whether the NMA will go ahead. Each said Boeing is still studying the business case and that there is interest in it from airlines. But clearly there is now a possibility of Boeing taking a different turn.

So, if two senior Boeing execs are to be believed, the business case still wasn't closed in June 2019. There are plenty of other sources that say the same thing.

Apologies Scrimbl - posted in passing.
That is exactly the behaviour that I saw, and recall, from Boeing, so thanks for the link.
I'm pretty sure we'd all love to see a new product to excite us - what enthusiast wouldn't?
I worry that said enthusiasm creates its own echo chamber in the forum in cases like this.
Boeing have never looked close to pulling the trigger on NMA.

And all that Airbus putting more capable A321 derivatives into that space does, is narrow the market, and the business case for an all-new product from Boeing even further.
Which is clearly Airbus's corporate strategy in this particular space..

Rgds

Revelation wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

First mover advantage means comparable performance / cost might still give you a decisive advantage you can expand on as we saw with the Neo.

Thanks for your post, I think you are making good points, it's OK if we don't see things the same way.

I think NEO's advantages came from its own qualities rather than being first to market. If being first was decisive, AA would not have ordered MAX in large numbers like they did.

I agree NEO triggered Boeing to respond with MAX, and IMO it'd be fine if A322 triggers Boeing to respond with NMA, because I think its own qualities will give it an advantage over A322 in many important ways.

Agree NMA concepts floated around show significant differences in payload-range compared to a "simple" stretch XLR A322. And costs/efficiencies differences as a result.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

First mover advantage means comparable performance / cost might still give you a decisive advantage you can expand on as we saw with the Neo.

Thanks for your post, I think you are making good points, it's OK if we don't see things the same way.

I think NEO's advantages came from its own qualities rather than being first to market. If being first was decisive, AA would not have ordered MAX in large numbers like they did.

I agree NEO triggered Boeing to respond with MAX, and IMO it'd be fine if A322 triggers Boeing to respond with NMA, because I think its own qualities will give it an advantage over A322 in many important ways.

Agree NMA concepts floated around show significant differences in payload-range compared to a "simple" stretch XLR A322. And costs/efficiencies differences as a result.

I like that rendering. Feels like an updated 757

IIRC that is from some Boeing chart that carefully avoided to hint a the fuselage shape or diameter. Possibly indicating some small wide body layout or widened oval shape.This must be the one that Boeing abandoned?

Opus99 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Thanks for your post, I think you are making good points, it's OK if we don't see things the same way.

I think NEO's advantages came from its own qualities rather than being first to market. If being first was decisive, AA would not have ordered MAX in large numbers like they did.

I agree NEO triggered Boeing to respond with MAX, and IMO it'd be fine if A322 triggers Boeing to respond with NMA, because I think its own qualities will give it an advantage over A322 in many important ways.

Agree NMA concepts floated around show significant differences in payload-range compared to a "simple" stretch XLR A322. And costs/efficiencies differences as a result.

I like that rendering. Feels like an updated 757

Maybe, would be nice to see from above if more 757 or scaled down 767/787, so again if 6 or more abreast with all the consequences and reflections.

Kikko19 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Agree NMA concepts floated around show significant differences in payload-range compared to a "simple" stretch XLR A322. And costs/efficiencies differences as a result.

I like that rendering. Feels like an updated 757

Maybe, would be nice to see from above if more 757 or scaled down 767/787, so again if 6 or more abreast with all the consequences and reflections.

Given how heavy it is. 72T OEW i would say from above more scaled down 787/767

Opus99 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I like that rendering. Feels like an updated 757

Maybe, would be nice to see from above if more 757 or scaled down 767/787, so again if 6 or more abreast with all the consequences and reflections.

Given how heavy it is. 72T OEW i would say from above more scaled down 787/767

Second question: couldn't the potential a322 have more range to match the 797? 5000nm?

Kikko19 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Maybe, would be nice to see from above if more 757 or scaled down 767/787, so again if 6 or more abreast with all the consequences and reflections.

Given how heavy it is. 72T OEW i would say from above more scaled down 787/767

Second question: couldn't the potential a322 have more range to match the 797? 5000nm?

That would make it too heavy to compete on shorter routes where it is intended to shine.

Somewhere there is always a trade off. In general more range = heavier airframe or more range = less payload. It is like the cheap-fast-quality triangle, where you only can have two out of the three. With the airframe it is also light-range-payload, and you can only have two of the three. A&B have to choose where they want to place their MoM-aircraft. The 322 will most probably meet light-payload if it is based on the XLR (which has light-range), while the Boeing-Version seems to aim for range-payload bracket.

FluidFlow wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Given how heavy it is. 72T OEW i would say from above more scaled down 787/767

Second question: couldn't the potential a322 have more range to match the 797? 5000nm?

That would make it too heavy to compete on shorter routes where it is intended to shine.

Somewhere there is always a trade off. In general more range = heavier airframe or more range = less payload. It is like the cheap-fast-quality triangle, where you only can have two out of the three. With the airframe it is also light-range-payload, and you can only have two of the three. A&B have to choose where they want to place their MoM-aircraft. The 322 will most probably meet light-payload if it is based on the XLR (which has light-range), while the Boeing-Version seems to aim for range-payload bracket.

Thanks. So we could expect something like a300 neo eventually to cover that gap ? :}

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I think the problem with folding wingtips is it moves the aileron further inboard which subsequently reduces flap size. Certifying a folding wingtip where the aileron folds is probably nearly impossible for a commercial airplane given the reliability requirements in FAR 25.1309. If the aileron is further inboard, it needs more travel or needs to be larger. A smaller flap span will also result in the need for more complicated (double slotted) flaps to generate sufficient lift for landing which again adds weight and drag.

The majority of the roll movement on the FBW airbus is accomplished through the use of spoiler not aileron. I would expect this wing to be around 40m of span unfolded still with an aileron.

The main take away of this new wing I think will be to include automotive assembly technology to reduce cost and increase volume.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If you want to go with the inverse, Boeing would commit to $billions without understanding the competitive response, I can't stop you.

I would expect Boeing to put their best foot forward irrespective of the Airbus response

So it's too much to say that Boeing would put their best foot forward while also understanding how the competitive response might impact their large investment?

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Reported in the Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/ ) launch was expected at 2019 Paris Air Show in June 2019, crash happened April 2019, I should have said just after.

If you want to consider a journalist's expectations as proof that the business case was about to close then I can't stop you.
Posters on here have been expecting the launch of NMA for nearly a decade
Boeing have never said the business case was about to close as far as I am aware.

Fine, but that's not what I asserted (I said it was about to close) and we aren't talking about Simply Flying here, we're talking about reporting from Dominic Gates, the same guy who just won the Pulitzer prize for his reporting on Boeing.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It'll show that Airbus feels there is a need for a product in the gap between A321XLR and A330-800neo.

Not really. It'll show them closing the door on a dedicated product between the A321XLR and the A330-800NEO

It won't close any doors, just like A350 Mk1 aka A330-lite did not close the door to the eventual A350-XWB.

Funny, your push back on hypothetical products only seems to be limited to Boeing's offerings, meanwhile here we are in a thread about a hypothetical Airbus product that a journalist conjures up out of a long running R&D project and a few whispers about customers being shown various things and we see no push back at all.

Rekoff wrote:

I dont think many people doubt there is a viable market potential between the A321 and A338/B788. If there is still a viable market between a rewinged A322 and A338/B788 remakns to be seen. Saying the A322 would [actually i]help [/i]the case for the NMA seems rather wishful thinking. I guess the 787 also validates the existence of the A330?

The existence of the 787 is what drove the creation of the A330-lite and its evolution to the A350-XWB.

As above, I think the hypotetical A322 is already factored into the NMA business plan so it's not going to impact it very much, but having Airbus commit to it will make the conclusion that there is a market between MAX10/A321 and 788/A338 unavoidable and will help drive NMA to market. I don't think anything will happen till 2023 or so, but till then it'll be interesting to see what Airbus decides to reveal about WoT and A322.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Reported in the Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/ ) launch was expected at 2019 Paris Air Show in June 2019, crash happened April 2019, I should have said just after..

Just picking up on this one again Rev, (sorry, I didn't have a lot of time to post earlier), when you look at the article you posted, Calhoun says he instructed the engineers to go "back to the drawing board"

Calhoun also disclosed he has instructed engineers to go back to the drawing board for Boeing’s next new airplane. That reset could have a significant strategic impact on the competitive balance with rival Airbus,

.

I would have expected the comments from Calhoun to be far more positive if the "business case was about to close".
Instead Calhoun's comments point much more towards "they weren't ready" in my eyes
Which is why I tend to react when posters post as if it were a done deal, because I think that most of the evidence from Boeing points the other way.
I could be wrong.
From my seat, it's usually you that is likely to make the sort of robust challenge in pursuit of a stronger argument that I have just made, so I was a little bit surprised to see the comment.
Maybe its just me

Calhoun's comments are from 2020, the time in question is early 2019. He was a pretty detached board member in early 2019, his outlook in early 2020 was shaped by being made CEO with little advance notice and having to factor in dealing with real impacts of the aftermath of MCAS and not wanting to be too closely associated with the previous CEO's legacy.

zeke wrote:

The main take away of this new wing I think will be to include automotive assembly technology to reduce cost and increase volume.

Within the context of course that significant gains in production efficiency can only be achieved on new-programme airframes from Boeing .....

Rgds

Revelation wrote:

Funny, your push back on hypothetical products only seems to be limited to Boeing's offerings, meanwhile here we are in a thread about a hypothetical Airbus product that a journalist conjures up out of a long running R&D project and a few whispers about customers being shown various things and we see no push back at all.

What is this Rev?
Dumbass points scoring time?

Boeing have been working hard to try and launch a real multi-billion dollar programme into a very challenging market position, and have clearly struggled to do so, but somehow it's wrong to point out the difficulties?

Airbus have been working on an R+D project for a produceable CFRP narrowbody wing for potential future narrowbody applications and er, what am I supposed to push back on?
It's a piece of R+D.
They've not been desperately trying to launch it into the market for nearly a decade with great fanfare
IT'S R+D!!

If I've trodden on your toes somewhere then I'll apologise, but you really need to lighten up a bit here, my friend....

And to be a bit less apologetic, there's a sight less to push back on about the potential launch of another A321 derivative than there is on an all-new airframe aimed at a difficult niche...
From my seat the "MOM gap" looks structural to the industry, which is why I'm sceptical
If Airbus were launching an all-new NMA I would make the same observations for those very same reasons, but they're not
I'm sorry if you can't see the differentiation here.

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Within the context of course that significant gains in production efficiency can only be achieved on new-programme airframes from Boeing .....

Rgds

Yeah I thought Airbus was playing a long game buying the A220 for $1, that A220 dry layup technology has the potential to go from automatic tape layup like used on the 787/A350/77X to something like a pick and place machine used for electronics mass production where sheets of composites are placed on the tool and then formed.

astuteman wrote:

Airbus have been working on an R+D project for a produceable CFRP narrowbody wing for potential future narrowbody applications and er, what am I supposed to push back on?
It's a piece of R+D.
They've not been desperately trying to launch it into the market for nearly a decade with great fanfare
IT'S R+D!!

You and I know that, but look at the title of this thread, read the article, read the early responses...

First post: "The NMA battle is heating up" -- but wait, this is just an R&D program.

Shortly thereafter, talk of this R&D program crushing and killing things.

Lots to push back on, and guess what, I did, with well researched posts.

It would have been nice to get more positive feedback on that, but hey, there's no guarantees in life.

astuteman wrote:

From my seat the "MOM gap" looks structural to the industry, which is why I'm sceptical

That´s the main hurdle. Boeing itself defines the MoM market at between 4,000 and 5,000 units. Assuming a development price tag of around 15 bn USD for a new design that comes down to about 3.5 million USD of R&D costs to be recovered per plane - at 100% market share. Assuming that Airbus won´t sit on its hands and a 50/50 share is more likely that sum increases to north of 6 million USD / plane.

Considering that a 737-10 sells for around 50 million USD, and a 787-8 for probably 110 million USD (certainly pleased to be corrected - for the A321XLR it´s probably currently near 70 million USD, and the A330-800 for 110 million USD, too) it sets the achievable market price for MoM into the range of around 80 million USD all in. 10% R&D costs to be achieved just to recoup development plus a 10% margin means you´ll need to end up at a production cost level of around 65 million USD to be achieved. That´s only workable for a model with volume I guess, and 2,500 units spread over a 20 years horizon means a bit over 100 units a year and less than 10 a month. That may make it quite hard to achieve this cost level at all.

If an A322 is entered into the game and only takes 20% of the market stipulated above, reducing same to 4,000 units in total your need to recoup already 7.5 million USD / plane - either putting vast pressure on your production costs or your margin (or both). Neither good for your buiness case.

astuteman wrote:

zeke wrote:

The main take away of this new wing I think will be to include automotive assembly technology to reduce cost and increase volume.

Within the context of course that significant gains in production efficiency can only be achieved on new-programme airframes from Boeing .....

Rgds

The thing is, as I see it, is that the technology to produce the things cheaper is quite closely tied to the rate of production. Cars are cheaper to produce not because of the robotics used but because the scale of production allows the robotics to be a worthwhile investment.

You also need to match the production technology to the design, the airbus wing design, although updated from the original somewhat would not have been designed to take advantage of the additional tech that 60/mo could bring. A worthwhile investment to produce wings at 100/mo is very different to one at 10/mo.

The old landrover Defender springs to mind, a car that was born in The 40s and struggled to compete against the automated production of modern pickup trucks to compete on price. The automation was difficult to add to that production because it had been designed to be put together by two blokes wearing flat caps in Solihull. It turns out robots don’t like wobbly flat sheets of Al being bonded with silicone and pop rivets.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

The thing is, as I see it, is that the technology to produce the things cheaper is quite closely tied to the rate of production. Cars are cheaper to produce not because of the robotics used but because the scale of production allows the robotics to be a worthwhile investment.

Yes and no, one of the reasons I used the pick and place technology used in electronics. Cars are very cheap to produce because there is literally is not much in them, not a lot of high technology in them. Airliners are expensive per unit, a lot more material and technology goes into them, they savings to made per unit are much greater.

If we’re making smaller aircraft like a C172 I can see your point, as the manufacturing robots would be worth more than the end product.

zeke wrote:

Yes and no, one of the reasons I used the pick and place technology used in electronics. Cars are very cheap to produce because there is literally is not much in them, not a lot of high technology in them. Airliners are expensive per unit, a lot more material and technology goes into them, they savings to made per unit are much greater.

I agree, aircraft are a lot more dependent on high tech things, but the recent production shut downs in the auto industry due to chip shortages show they aren't as simple as they once were.

https://www.ceinetwork.com/cei-blog/aut ... r-repairs/ says:

What are these computers doing? Referred to as ECU’s – short for Electronic Control Units – they run most of the functions of your vehicle. The biggest coordinates all the aspects of a car’s engine, including the fuel injection rate to the ignition, throttle, timing, emissions and cooling. Others monitor the anti-lock brakes, traction control, stability control, air bags, the windshield wipers, headlamps, and air conditioning. Then there are those that run the navigation system, music system, mobile phones, digital dashboard displays and, more recently, the driver assist systems.

So, an airplane is still far more complicated, yet cars are a lot more complicated than they were in the old days.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

First mover advantage means comparable performance / cost might still give you a decisive advantage you can expand on as we saw with the Neo.

Thanks for your post, I think you are making good points, it's OK if we don't see things the same way.

I think NEO's advantages came from its own qualities rather than being first to market. If being first was decisive, AA would not have ordered MAX in large numbers like they did.

I agree NEO triggered Boeing to respond with MAX, and IMO it'd be fine if A322 triggers Boeing to respond with NMA, because I think its own qualities will give it an advantage over A322 in many important ways.

Agree NMA concepts floated around show significant differences in payload-range compared to a "simple" stretch XLR A322. And costs/efficiencies differences as a result.

And those differences in capabilities will mean it will eat into the 787 market...
A338/9 is already on a lifeline as is, without competition from the bottom, so I'd expect Airbus would need to respond with a groundup 7ab themselves, one that will be somewhat wider and longer and more capable, just like A320 vs 737 and A350 vs 787.

zeke wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I think the problem with folding wingtips is it moves the aileron further inboard which subsequently reduces flap size. Certifying a folding wingtip where the aileron folds is probably nearly impossible for a commercial airplane given the reliability requirements in FAR 25.1309. If the aileron is further inboard, it needs more travel or needs to be larger. A smaller flap span will also result in the need for more complicated (double slotted) flaps to generate sufficient lift for landing which again adds weight and drag.

The majority of the roll movement on the FBW airbus is accomplished through the use of spoiler not aileron. I would expect this wing to be around 40m of span unfolded still with an aileron.

The main take away of this new wing I think will be to include automotive assembly technology to reduce cost and increase volume.

I’m not sure what you are implying. Are you implying that the aileron is not necessary or can be shrunk? 36 meter Code C gates is a big factor. If the plane can’t fit that gate space, the they will be in code D that goes up to 52 meters. I would think that there is not much point having a folding wing if it can’t fit in Code C. If the wing ends up being 40 m unfolded, Folding 4 meters that doesn’t include any flight control surfaces seems to make sense