Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

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

Airbus has been testing an electric wing on the A320. All hydraulics replace by electric or electro hydraulic actuators. It provides a significant weight reduction.
If the new wing would be build with this technology and with ailerons on the folding wingtip, there would be only the need for electric cables going past the folding mechanism.
Flapspan would not be reduced compared to the current A321/A320 wing, so I see little problems with generating lift with the flaps. For safety they could use a second smaller airelon inboards/flaperon or use the flaps as airelon. The flaps can be used to morph the wing, unthinkable that Airbus does not use it on a new wing and computer driven flaps should be able to produce differential settings between the sides to give the same effect as airelons.

IMO Airbus should just build the bigger wing for D code up to 52 m span. There are enough D code gates on airports as it is. Keeping the price down would be more important than squeezing the limited number of A321+ or A322 into C code gates.
A new wing for an A320 and standard A321 should just stay inside the 36 m or perhaps they should not get new wings.

zeke wrote:

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.

I don’t see the relevance of tech level in a product compared to the automation of producing said product? I currently work in an industry where the product is very low tech (Pennies per kilo) and the level of automation is so great that I wouldn’t expect a human to touch the product till it’s the end user. The level of automation that makes sense is more closely tied to the ease of implementation (if it can be designed in to the product) and the volume of the output. The bigger the output the more specialised and repetitive the ‘jobs’ become and the greater the chance of suitable automation will be developed. The C172 might be cheaper per unit but the diversity of tasks associated with its build is also lower.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

mjoelnir wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

zeke wrote:

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

Airbus has been testing an electric wing on the A320. All hydraulics replace by electric or electro hydraulic actuators. It provides a significant weight reduction.
If the new wing would be build with this technology and with ailerons on the folding wingtip, there would be only the need for electric cables going past the folding mechanism.
Flapspan would not be reduced compared to the current A321/A320 wing, so I see little problems with generating lift with the flaps. For safety they could use a second smaller airelon inboards/flaperon or use the flaps as airelon. The flaps can be used to morph the wing, unthinkable that Airbus does not use it on a new wing and computer driven flaps should be able to produce differential settings between the sides to give the same effect as airelons.

IMO Airbus should just build the bigger wing for D code up to 52 m span. There are enough D code gates on airports as it is. Keeping the price down would be more important than squeezing the limited number of A321+ or A322 into C code gates.
A new wing for an A320 and standard A321 should just stay inside the 36 m or perhaps they should not get new wings.

An electric aileron actuator would be simpler than folding hydraulics although not incredibly different than hydraulic hoses on the gear that move when the gear retracts. The risk that I see with folding the aileron is now there are possibilities of loss of lateral control in the same fault trees as the folding wingtip. That is going to force a lot more redundancy to get to a one in a billion probability of catastrophic failure. It certainly is possible since both military and general aviation have wings that fold the aileron, but those airplanes don’t have to meet FAR 25.1309.

Revelation wrote:

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.

If you need my positive feedback that much....
Your post #27 summed up the situation perfectly, IMO, and was all the response necessary to "crushing and killing".
Said all that needed to be said, to be honest.

Personally for me those couple of posts weren't even worthy of being given dignity by responding. But that's just my personal choice.
If fanboys want to rattle sabres on the back of an old article on an R+D project, that's their gig.
I'm sure most posters are aware of the reality of the thread basis.

The NMA business case is different. This is a debate about a very real and significant situation.
I remain convinced that the business case wasn't as ready to close as many posters think, and your comment implied.
In the ST article linked in Scrimbl's response in post #78, that same well respected Dominic Gates uses this language..

Just last year, it seemed Boeing might announce plans at the 2019 Paris show for an all-new airplane

Given the significance of Boeing pulling the trigger on NMA or otherwise, I felt (and still feel) it was worthy of pushing back on the trend of turning such one single equivocal comment into a statement of fact that the launch was ready. I don't see that comment as "proof" that the business case was "ready to go".

I've searched back in the thread to look for my own unconscious bias, as implied by your pushback, but didn't find it.
I have a "conscious" one that I have already stated - insofar as I can see a business case for Airbus to launch a simple derivative of the A321 into part of the MOM space, piggy-backed on it being part of an already successful narrowbody family, much more easily than I can see a business case for launching an expensive, dedicated programme to fill a space that I think is there due to market forces, not due to the lack of potential products.
But don't try to paint that as an Airbus vs Boeing bias, because it's not.

Is my stance actually correct? That's a different debate I guess, and many posters will disagree with me.
We'll see eventually, one way or another.

Rgds

Opus99 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Your obsession with crushing and killing I don’t understand it...

...Airbus won’t bother with this if they don’t have to and will just apply it onto the next generation of narrow bodies. As the article suggests it’s an answer to a Boeing move. Truth is nobody knows what the hell Boeing is doing. When that comes out then we can have the conversation.

Airbus didn't have to launch the A321LR. They didn't have to launch the A321XLR. They seem pretty adamant about locking down this segment of the market by making it a poor investment for Boeing.

Opus99 wrote:

It’s the same thing you said for A350F. Airbus is still trying to market it and so far as we know and has been unsuccessful.

I was pretty clear that whichever manufacturer hits the market first will kill the other's attempt, not that the A350F would kill the 777XF. That topic just happened to be about the A350F possibly nearing launch.
With small niche segments, there just isn't space for 2 competitors, lest they bleed each other dry. We saw that with the Tristar vs DC-10 in the past. Arguably the same for the A380 and 747-8i. An A322 would compete for a market space of maybe 500, at most maybe 800 aircraft. Split that across 2 manufacturers, that's barely enough for 2 derivative models, let alone a clean sheet design. It's just reality, no matter how much some want to see every manufacturer have a product for every market.

Airbus had to launch those because there was nothing else and they could easily do it. It was a no brainer. The 321XLR is their current MOM answer by default. They also want to see what Boeing will launch before they move. As the industry suggests. Bear in mind 322 is not an LR or an XLR. There’s no benefit in launching before hand and bringing out a product that will be dominated. Wait and see how Boeing will move and that will determine how they move.

That's not necessarily true. Airbus could launch first because they know Boeing is planning an all new model. This would be a repeat of the NEO vs Max situation. And we all know how that one turned out.

JetBuddy wrote:

That's not necessarily true. Airbus could launch first because they know Boeing is planning an all new model. This would be a repeat of the NEO vs Max situation. And we all know how that one turned out.

In all truth Airbus did not preempt Boeing in that case. They called a bluff.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

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

Yep. And what about winglets? They disappeared in the 779 because of the folding? What could be done on smaller planes?

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO Airbus should just build the bigger wing for D code up to 52 m span. There are enough D code gates on airports as it is. Keeping the price down would be more important than squeezing the limited number of A321+ or A322 into C code gates.
A new wing for an A320 and standard A321 should just stay inside the 36 m or perhaps they should not get new wings.

It will definitely be a folding wing to stay inside C code gates. The Airbus image even shows one folded wing and a centre wing box. If gate restrictions are removed from the equation the perfect optimised wingspan for the A321XLR would probably be between 40m to 42m.



The 757 with winglets has 41m of the span. The ailerons stop at 37m. So 4m of the wing is beyond the aileron.

So making a 41m folded with 2.5m folding wingtips to come down to 36m folded wing seems pretty logical. With a 12:1 aspect ratio wing and the aileron within the 36m span performance would be exceptional.

Taller landing gear or larger more powerful engines wouldn't even be needed. At 41m span engine it would need approximately 10% less thrust for the same takeoff performance. MTOW could increase to around 110t without requiring different engines from the current A321XLR.

Without a MTOW increase then the range probably wouldn't increase much with the new wing. The 777-9 has less range than the 777-300ER despite a new wing and next generation engines. The empty weight increase is roughly the same as the fuel burn decrease. Fuel burn significantly improved but range didn't.

This new A321 wing makes sense of it goes with a MTOW increase. My estimates are at 105t MTOW this puts the A321 fuselage length up to 5,000nm range. At 110t MTOW it would put the A321 fuselage range up near 5,500nm range. A 3-4m stretch A322 would then be 4,000nm range at 105t or 4,500nm at 110t MTOW.

So Airbus will end up with a 200 seat 5,500nm A321 and a 250 seat 4,500nm A322. It makes sense to launch the new wing only on the A322 first and pump out as many A321XLR as possible.

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO Airbus should just build the bigger wing for D code up to 52 m span. There are enough D code gates on airports as it is. Keeping the price down would be more important than squeezing the limited number of A321+ or A322 into C code gates.
A new wing for an A320 and standard A321 should just stay inside the 36 m or perhaps they should not get new wings.

It will definitely be a folding wing to stay inside C code gates. The Airbus image even shows one folded wing and a centre wing box. If gate restrictions are removed from the equation the perfect optimised wingspan for the A321XLR would probably be between 40m to 42m.



The 757 with winglets has 41m of the span. The ailerons stop at 37m. So 4m of the wing is beyond the aileron.

So making a 41m folded with 2.5m folding wingtips to come down to 36m folded wing seems pretty logical. With a 12:1 aspect ratio wing and the aileron within the 36m span performance would be exceptional.

Taller landing gear or larger more powerful engines wouldn't even be needed. At 41m span engine it would need approximately 10% less thrust for the same takeoff performance. MTOW could increase to around 110t without requiring different engines from the current A321XLR.

Without a MTOW increase then the range probably wouldn't increase much with the new wing. The 777-9 has less range than the 777-300ER despite a new wing and next generation engines. The empty weight increase is roughly the same as the fuel burn decrease. Fuel burn significantly improved but range didn't.

This new A321 wing makes sense of it goes with a MTOW increase. My estimates are at 105t MTOW this puts the A321 fuselage length up to 5,000nm range. At 110t MTOW it would put the A321 fuselage range up near 5,500nm range. A 3-4m stretch A322 would then be 4,000nm range at 105t or 4,500nm at 110t MTOW.

So Airbus will end up with a 200 seat 5,500nm A321 and a 250 seat 4,500nm A322. It makes sense to launch the new wing only on the A322 first and pump out as many A321XLR as possible.

Does a 110t aircraft not anyway need a new gear (double boogie) and than Airbus can also increase ground clearance in anticipation of newer higher bypass engines (or what ever comes next) just to have that already done for the future?

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO Airbus should just build the bigger wing for D code up to 52 m span. There are enough D code gates on airports as it is. Keeping the price down would be more important than squeezing the limited number of A321+ or A322 into C code gates.
A new wing for an A320 and standard A321 should just stay inside the 36 m or perhaps they should not get new wings.

It will definitely be a folding wing to stay inside C code gates. The Airbus image even shows one folded wing and a centre wing box. If gate restrictions are removed from the equation the perfect optimised wingspan for the A321XLR would probably be between 40m to 42m.



The 757 with winglets has 41m of the span. The ailerons stop at 37m. So 4m of the wing is beyond the aileron.

So making a 41m folded with 2.5m folding wingtips to come down to 36m folded wing seems pretty logical. With a 12:1 aspect ratio wing and the aileron within the 36m span performance would be exceptional.

Taller landing gear or larger more powerful engines wouldn't even be needed. At 41m span engine it would need approximately 10% less thrust for the same takeoff performance. MTOW could increase to around 110t without requiring different engines from the current A321XLR.

Without a MTOW increase then the range probably wouldn't increase much with the new wing. The 777-9 has less range than the 777-300ER despite a new wing and next generation engines. The empty weight increase is roughly the same as the fuel burn decrease. Fuel burn significantly improved but range didn't.

This new A321 wing makes sense of it goes with a MTOW increase. My estimates are at 105t MTOW this puts the A321 fuselage length up to 5,000nm range. At 110t MTOW it would put the A321 fuselage range up near 5,500nm range. A 3-4m stretch A322 would then be 4,000nm range at 105t or 4,500nm at 110t MTOW.

So Airbus will end up with a 200 seat 5,500nm A321 and a 250 seat 4,500nm A322. It makes sense to launch the new wing only on the A322 first and pump out as many A321XLR as possible.

The first thing I could think of when reading your post was all the threads about re-starting 757 production. I wonder how all the proponents of that idea would take to it being re-started by airbus?

I like the idea of what you have there but the wing seems too small for 110t MTOW. The wing loading would suggest it’ll still have the same altitude restrictions as the A321. I think my previous calcs put it at about 153m^2.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the wing is folding anyway would something like a raked wingtip instead of sharklets be the way to go in an ideal world?

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO Airbus should just build the bigger wing for D code up to 52 m span. There are enough D code gates on airports as it is. Keeping the price down would be more important than squeezing the limited number of A321+ or A322 into C code gates.
A new wing for an A320 and standard A321 should just stay inside the 36 m or perhaps they should not get new wings.

It will definitely be a folding wing to stay inside C code gates. The Airbus image even shows one folded wing and a centre wing box. If gate restrictions are removed from the equation the perfect optimised wingspan for the A321XLR would probably be between 40m to 42m.



The 757 with winglets has 41m of the span. The ailerons stop at 37m. So 4m of the wing is beyond the aileron.

So making a 41m folded with 2.5m folding wingtips to come down to 36m folded wing seems pretty logical. With a 12:1 aspect ratio wing and the aileron within the 36m span performance would be exceptional.

Taller landing gear or larger more powerful engines wouldn't even be needed. At 41m span engine it would need approximately 10% less thrust for the same takeoff performance. MTOW could increase to around 110t without requiring different engines from the current A321XLR.

Without a MTOW increase then the range probably wouldn't increase much with the new wing. The 777-9 has less range than the 777-300ER despite a new wing and next generation engines. The empty weight increase is roughly the same as the fuel burn decrease. Fuel burn significantly improved but range didn't.

This new A321 wing makes sense of it goes with a MTOW increase. My estimates are at 105t MTOW this puts the A321 fuselage length up to 5,000nm range. At 110t MTOW it would put the A321 fuselage range up near 5,500nm range. A 3-4m stretch A322 would then be 4,000nm range at 105t or 4,500nm at 110t MTOW.

So Airbus will end up with a 200 seat 5,500nm A321 and a 250 seat 4,500nm A322. It makes sense to launch the new wing only on the A322 first and pump out as many A321XLR as possible.

I think few people doubt an optimized wing for higher BPR engines, 10t of extra MTOW, 5000NM is possible.
It would however cost E4-5B and at least 5 years to get into service. How many would they sell, 1000?

I think Airbus choose to invest in optimum product for up to 3500NM, 220 passengers.
A321NEO/R/XLR orders seem to indicate they did the right thing (3000 today).

I think using the new XLR wing for an A322 makes far more sense, lowers risks and investments. All the airlines flying to Mediterranean and Caribbean don't need more than 5-6 hours of flight. Neither does China, Europe and US. It seems there is no appetite to go 5000NM to fight for a niche against bigger more capable 787s, A350s at high costs and risk.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-flight-network-in-2015-by-distance-band-Initially-all-electric-aircraft_fig3_329540230

Maybe to situation changes is the A330 line is retiring.

keesje wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO Airbus should just build the bigger wing for D code up to 52 m span. There are enough D code gates on airports as it is. Keeping the price down would be more important than squeezing the limited number of A321+ or A322 into C code gates.
A new wing for an A320 and standard A321 should just stay inside the 36 m or perhaps they should not get new wings.

It will definitely be a folding wing to stay inside C code gates. The Airbus image even shows one folded wing and a centre wing box. If gate restrictions are removed from the equation the perfect optimised wingspan for the A321XLR would probably be between 40m to 42m.



The 757 with winglets has 41m of the span. The ailerons stop at 37m. So 4m of the wing is beyond the aileron.

So making a 41m folded with 2.5m folding wingtips to come down to 36m folded wing seems pretty logical. With a 12:1 aspect ratio wing and the aileron within the 36m span performance would be exceptional.

Taller landing gear or larger more powerful engines wouldn't even be needed. At 41m span engine it would need approximately 10% less thrust for the same takeoff performance. MTOW could increase to around 110t without requiring different engines from the current A321XLR.

Without a MTOW increase then the range probably wouldn't increase much with the new wing. The 777-9 has less range than the 777-300ER despite a new wing and next generation engines. The empty weight increase is roughly the same as the fuel burn decrease. Fuel burn significantly improved but range didn't.

This new A321 wing makes sense of it goes with a MTOW increase. My estimates are at 105t MTOW this puts the A321 fuselage length up to 5,000nm range. At 110t MTOW it would put the A321 fuselage range up near 5,500nm range. A 3-4m stretch A322 would then be 4,000nm range at 105t or 4,500nm at 110t MTOW.

So Airbus will end up with a 200 seat 5,500nm A321 and a 250 seat 4,500nm A322. It makes sense to launch the new wing only on the A322 first and pump out as many A321XLR as possible.

I think few people doubt an optimized wing for higher BPR engines, 10t of extra MTOW, 5000NM is possible.
It would however cost E4-5B and at least 5 years to get into service. How many would they sell, 1000?

I think Airbus choose to invest in optimum product for up to 3500NM, 220 passengers.
A321NEO/R/XLR orders seem to indicate they did the right thing (3000 today).

I think using the new XLR wing for an A322 makes far more sense, lowers risks and investments. All the airlines flying to Mediterranean and Caribbean don't need more than 5-6 hours of flight. Neither does China, Europe and US. It seems there is no appetite to go 5000NM to fight for a niche against bigger more capable 787s, A350s at high costs and risk.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-flight-network-in-2015-by-distance-band-Initially-all-electric-aircraft_fig3_329540230

Maybe to situation changes is the A330 line is retiring.

I always find this data quite intriguing. Looking at it one would conclude that creating an 1500nm optimized NB would be an killer offering as it counts for most routes. But in the real world we see that there is not such an offering and higher ranged planes gather significant orders...

JonesNL wrote:

keesje wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

It will definitely be a folding wing to stay inside C code gates. The Airbus image even shows one folded wing and a centre wing box. If gate restrictions are removed from the equation the perfect optimised wingspan for the A321XLR would probably be between 40m to 42m.



The 757 with winglets has 41m of the span. The ailerons stop at 37m. So 4m of the wing is beyond the aileron.

So making a 41m folded with 2.5m folding wingtips to come down to 36m folded wing seems pretty logical. With a 12:1 aspect ratio wing and the aileron within the 36m span performance would be exceptional.

Taller landing gear or larger more powerful engines wouldn't even be needed. At 41m span engine it would need approximately 10% less thrust for the same takeoff performance. MTOW could increase to around 110t without requiring different engines from the current A321XLR.

Without a MTOW increase then the range probably wouldn't increase much with the new wing. The 777-9 has less range than the 777-300ER despite a new wing and next generation engines. The empty weight increase is roughly the same as the fuel burn decrease. Fuel burn significantly improved but range didn't.

This new A321 wing makes sense of it goes with a MTOW increase. My estimates are at 105t MTOW this puts the A321 fuselage length up to 5,000nm range. At 110t MTOW it would put the A321 fuselage range up near 5,500nm range. A 3-4m stretch A322 would then be 4,000nm range at 105t or 4,500nm at 110t MTOW.

So Airbus will end up with a 200 seat 5,500nm A321 and a 250 seat 4,500nm A322. It makes sense to launch the new wing only on the A322 first and pump out as many A321XLR as possible.

I think few people doubt an optimized wing for higher BPR engines, 10t of extra MTOW, 5000NM is possible.
It would however cost E4-5B and at least 5 years to get into service. How many would they sell, 1000?

I think Airbus choose to invest in optimum product for up to 3500NM, 220 passengers.
A321NEO/R/XLR orders seem to indicate they did the right thing (3000 today).

I think using the new XLR wing for an A322 makes far more sense, lowers risks and investments. All the airlines flying to Mediterranean and Caribbean don't need more than 5-6 hours of flight. Neither does China, Europe and US. It seems there is no appetite to go 5000NM to fight for a niche against bigger more capable 787s, A350s at high costs and risk.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-flight-network-in-2015-by-distance-band-Initially-all-electric-aircraft_fig3_329540230

Maybe to situation changes is the A330 line is retiring.

I always find this data quite intriguing. Looking at it one would conclude that creating an 1500nm optimized NB would be an killer offering as it counts for most routes. But in the real world we see that there is not such an offering and higher ranged planes gather significant orders...

If you would change that picture into <3500nm and >3500nm you see exactly why the 320 and 737 are so popular and why the next big thing has to be optimised for <3500nm. Thats also why the 321 is the go to aircraft for now, its performance is unmatched <3500nm and why the XLR is such a success. It increases the market potential above the main target market with near to no investment needed.

Kikko19 wrote:

Yep. And what about winglets? They disappeared in the 779 because of the folding? What could be done on smaller planes?

Winglets disappeared on the 787 without any folding. When Boeing was allowed more span because the Navy P-8 version of 737 did not need to fit airport gates, it got raked wingtips rather than winglets. There were other reasons for that too (raked wingtips shed ice better, etc) but it shows winglets aren't necessarily the way to go.

One explanation I read was that winglets are a fix for wings designed before the performance degradation of wingtip vortices was well understood where span can't be increased. There are other ways to approach the problem on all-new wings and/or when span can be increased.

If we see folding wingtips on Boeing's newest wing (777x) and then Airbus's newest wing (WoT) too, it seems we'll have a pretty solid evidence trail that the gain of additional span overcomes the pain (cost, weight, maintenance, training) of folding wingtips.

Revelation wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Yep. And what about winglets? They disappeared in the 779 because of the folding? What could be done on smaller planes?

Winglets disappeared on the 787 without any folding. When Boeing was allowed more span because the Navy P-8 version of 737 did not need to fit airport gates, it got raked wingtips rather than winglets. There were other reasons for that too (raked wingtips shed ice better, etc) but it shows winglets aren't necessarily the way to go.

One explanation I read was that winglets are a fix for wings designed before the performance degradation of wingtip vortices was well understood where span can't be increased. There are other ways to approach the problem on all-new wings and/or when span can be increased.

They (winglets) are also gone on the E2 series

Revelation wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Yep. And what about winglets? They disappeared in the 779 because of the folding? What could be done on smaller planes?

Winglets disappeared on the 787 without any folding. When Boeing was allowed more span because the Navy P-8 version of 737 did not need to fit airport gates, it got raked wingtips rather than winglets. There were other reasons for that too (raked wingtips shed ice better, etc) but it shows winglets aren't necessarily the way to go.

One explanation I read was that winglets are a fix for wings designed before the performance degradation of wingtip vortices was well understood where span can't be increased. There are other ways to approach the problem on all-new wings and/or when span can be increased.

If we see folding wingtips on Boeing's newest wing (777x) and then Airbus's newest wing (WoT) too, it seems we'll have a pretty solid evidence trail that the gain of additional span overcomes the pain (cost, weight, maintenance, training) of folding wingtips.

Raked wing tip and winglets are both wing tip devices. It has little to do with a new or old wing what you will use, but definitely with the wingspan.

The 737 has an old wing and does see winglets, split winglets and raked wingtip all practically on the same wing. Wing tip devices have been understood since the second world war. Not all aircraft manufacturers used that knowledge. In times of low oil prices, simplicity beat performance.

If you have to squeeze the wing into a certain span and want to increase active span while reducing the vortex, you go for a winglet. If you have no limits on the span or use folding wingtips you go for a racked wing tip. That is a rough judgment. As in everything it is not that easy. We see new designs for wing tip devices all the time.

FluidFlow wrote:

Does a 110t aircraft not anyway need a new gear (double boogie) and than Airbus can also increase ground clearance in anticipation of newer higher bypass engines (or what ever comes next) just to have that already done for the future?

No stronger or higher landing gear is required. The runway loading of the A321 is not very high. The landing and takeoff speeds will be lower with the big wing so a slightly higher weight won't see an increase in loads.

The bigger wing needs less thrust. Like the 777X the GE9X has a higher bypass ratio with less thrust and a slightly bigger fan. The engines were mounted slightly further outboard for greater clearance.

flipdewaf wrote:

I like the idea of what you have there but the wing seems too small for 110t MTOW. The wing loading would suggest it’ll still have the same altitude restrictions as the A321. I think my previous calcs put it at about 153m^2.

After deducting the fuselage width going to a 41m wingspan is a 16.5% increase in span. For a 9% increase in MTOW at 110t.

The most optimised wing depends on the average stage length. If Airbus put the average stage length at 1,000nm then the optimised wing will be smaller compared to if they put the average stage length at 3,000nm. I couldn't see the wing being over 42m as the design will still have a primary focus on short haul.

Noshow wrote:

If the wing is folding anyway would something like a raked wingtip instead of sharklets be the way to go in an ideal world?

Sharklets are used as they are the best if you don't want to increase the span. Airbus will probably used blended winglets like the A350.

keesje wrote:

I think using the new XLR wing for an A322 makes far more sense, lowers risks and investments. All the airlines flying to Mediterranean and Caribbean don't need more than 5-6 hours of flight.

The A322 probably can't even use the XLR wing. The A322 landing weight would probably be 10% higher than the A321XLR so it will be landing fast and heavy. The extra fuselage drag of the longer A322 will probably need more powerful engines compared to what the current engines can do.

The new big folding wing would reduce the landing speed to well below the current A321 at the same weight. This allows the landing weight to be higher and have a chance to stay with the current gear limits. The bigger wing will also need less thrust for takeoff so the current engines can be used.

Using the existing A321XLR might not save much money if it needs stronger gear, wingbox and more powerful engines. Fuel burn is also increased using the XLR wing. The big folding wing can keep most of the original aircraft and gets a fuel burn saving.

astuteman wrote:

If you need my positive feedback that much....
Your post #27 summed up the situation perfectly, IMO, and was all the response necessary to "crushing and killing".
Said all that needed to be said, to be honest.

Personally for me those couple of posts weren't even worthy of being given dignity by responding. But that's just my personal choice.
If fanboys want to rattle sabres on the back of an old article on an R+D project, that's their gig.
I'm sure most posters are aware of the reality of the thread basis.

Great, now I'm being portrayed as being excessively needy..

I guess I should be happy that my posts at least meet the standard of "worthy of being given dignity by responding" and use that to try to assuage my excessive neediness...

astuteman wrote:

The NMA business case is different. This is a debate about a very real and significant situation.
I remain convinced that the business case wasn't as ready to close as many posters think, and your comment implied.
In the ST article linked in Scrimbl's response in post #78, that same well respected Dominic Gates uses this language..

Just last year, it seemed Boeing might announce plans at the 2019 Paris show for an all-new airplane

Given the significance of Boeing pulling the trigger on NMA or otherwise, I felt (and still feel) it was worthy of pushing back on the trend of turning such one single equivocal comment into a statement of fact that the launch was ready. I don't see that comment as "proof" that the business case was "ready to go".

No issue with the robust push back, there is definitely room for interpretation, people have different perspectives and have different information and see different things all the time.

Let's look at the quote in context:

With the intense focus on getting the MAX back in the sky, Boeing’s plans for future new planes are even more uncertain.

Just last year, it seemed Boeing might announce plans at the 2019 Paris show for an all-new airplane — what it calls the New Midmarket Airplane or NMA, a midrange, “middle-of-the-market” plane designed to be larger than the 737 single-aisle but smaller than the 787 widebody.

Its top selling point was that it would have the comfort of a widebody jet “with single-aisle economics.”

But an NMA decision has been pushed way out by the MAX crisis, which may even alter Boeing’s plan for what that future plane should be.

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -air-show/

It seems we can agree MCAS had a major impact on NMA's trajectory (I hope!) and the point of disagreement is my use of the definite "about to close" vs this quote with its indefinite "seemed Boeing might".

Add Gate's later quote from my link ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/ )

The new jet that Boeing was once expected to launch last year at the Paris Air Show now seems years away.

The indefinite "seemed Boeing might" has been replaced with a more definite "was once expected".

And a direct quote from Boeing's CTO right before PAS:

Boeing wasn’t expected to discuss either the 737 Max or its NMA plans in Paris, saying this spring its focus remains on returning the 737 Max fleet to flight after two crashes and a global grounding.

However, Boeing Chief Technology Officer Greg Hyslop recently said that Boeing plans a Paris NMA announcement.

Questioned about the plane at a conference in Charlotte, Hyslop tantalized the audience by saying, “I suggest you go to the Paris Air Show.”

Hyslop also revealed that Boeing wants to “build” its first 100 NMAs virtually before beginning physical assembly. He said that what some analysts have labeled the 797 “will be a great airplane” built “in an amazing production facility.”

Ref: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... -jets.html

Then add 87 references and a detailed time line of what NMA was ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ne ... e_Airplane ) and reach your own conclusions.

Mine are shaped by my recollection of many of the events in that time line, active participation in the many robust threads we've had on the topic, posts by members here saying they were working on the program and a lot of media reports.

You are free to "remain convinced that the business case wasn't as ready to close as many posters think", I am free to remain convinced it was about to close.

astuteman wrote:

I've searched back in the thread to look for my own unconscious bias, as implied by your pushback, but didn't find it.
I have a "conscious" one that I have already stated - insofar as I can see a business case for Airbus to launch a simple derivative of the A321 into part of the MOM space, piggy-backed on it being part of an already successful narrowbody family, much more easily than I can see a business case for launching an expensive, dedicated programme to fill a space that I think is there due to market forces, not due to the lack of potential products.
But don't try to paint that as an Airbus vs Boeing bias, because it's not.

Is my stance actually correct? That's a different debate I guess, and many posters will disagree with me.
We'll see eventually, one way or another.

You've explained your lack of push back on the narrative tying the long-running Airbus R&D program to an actual product was due to (a) my adequate push back and (b) not dignifying other posts etc. and I accept that.

Of course Airbus has an easy path to a stretched derivative to enter the MOM space but I don't think that blocks Boeing from doing a bigger, more modern and more efficient MOM product. Boeing doesn't have the easy path open to it, it has to take the hard path or do nothing. IMO it won't do something that will prematurely terminate MAX, and I know this is not a very popular view, but IMO it is what will happen. They can't stiff their partners or their customers like that any time soon. Our 737 production thread suggest MAX10 will have its first flight in June. If Boeing was not willing to live and die with MAX the perfect time to change directions was when they were about to write those MCAS compensation checks. Instead they wrote those checks and took big orders for more MAXes from WN, AS, and FR, with FR now saying they want 100 MAX10s too. I think MAX has a lot more staying power than most posters think.

FluidFlow wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think few people doubt an optimized wing for higher BPR engines, 10t of extra MTOW, 5000NM is possible.
It would however cost E4-5B and at least 5 years to get into service. How many would they sell, 1000?

I think Airbus choose to invest in optimum product for up to 3500NM, 220 passengers.
A321NEO/R/XLR orders seem to indicate they did the right thing (3000 today).

I think using the new XLR wing for an A322 makes far more sense, lowers risks and investments. All the airlines flying to Mediterranean and Caribbean don't need more than 5-6 hours of flight. Neither does China, Europe and US. It seems there is no appetite to go 5000NM to fight for a niche against bigger more capable 787s, A350s at high costs and risk.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-flight-network-in-2015-by-distance-band-Initially-all-electric-aircraft_fig3_329540230

Maybe to situation changes is the A330 line is retiring.

I always find this data quite intriguing. Looking at it one would conclude that creating an 1500nm optimized NB would be an killer offering as it counts for most routes. But in the real world we see that there is not such an offering and higher ranged planes gather significant orders...

If you would change that picture into <3500nm and >3500nm you see exactly why the 320 and 737 are so popular and why the next big thing has to be optimised for <3500nm. Thats also why the 321 is the go to aircraft for now, its performance is unmatched <3500nm and why the XLR is such a success. It increases the market potential above the main target market with near to no investment needed.

Optimized for 1000nm with the ability to fly 2400nm is the heart of the market. The A321XLR gets lots of fanfare on a.net, but it is a small fragment of the market. The A321XLR represents less than 10% of the A320neo backlog https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-orders-2/

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I always find this data quite intriguing. Looking at it one would conclude that creating an 1500nm optimized NB would be an killer offering as it counts for most routes. But in the real world we see that there is not such an offering and higher ranged planes gather significant orders...

If you would change that picture into <3500nm and >3500nm you see exactly why the 320 and 737 are so popular and why the next big thing has to be optimised for <3500nm. Thats also why the 321 is the go to aircraft for now, its performance is unmatched <3500nm and why the XLR is such a success. It increases the market potential above the main target market with near to no investment needed.

Optimized for 1000nm with the ability to fly 2400nm is the heart of the market. The A321XLR gets lots of fanfare on a.net, but it is a small fragment of the market. The A321XLR represents less than 10% of the A320neo backlog https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-orders-2/

The NEO program was launched in 2010. The XLR was launched in 2019.

chiad wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

If you would change that picture into <3500nm and >3500nm you see exactly why the 320 and 737 are so popular and why the next big thing has to be optimised for <3500nm. Thats also why the 321 is the go to aircraft for now, its performance is unmatched <3500nm and why the XLR is such a success. It increases the market potential above the main target market with near to no investment needed.

Optimized for 1000nm with the ability to fly 2400nm is the heart of the market. The A321XLR gets lots of fanfare on a.net, but it is a small fragment of the market. The A321XLR represents less than 10% of the A320neo backlog https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-orders-2/

The NEO program was launched in 2010. The XLR was launched in 2019.

Are you implying that you expect more than 10% of future A320neo family deliveries will be A321XLRs? The market for long range narrowbodies is a fraction of the market for short haul narrowbodies as is shown on the chart that Keesje posted

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I always find this data quite intriguing. Looking at it one would conclude that creating an 1500nm optimized NB would be an killer offering as it counts for most routes. But in the real world we see that there is not such an offering and higher ranged planes gather significant orders...

If you would change that picture into <3500nm and >3500nm you see exactly why the 320 and 737 are so popular and why the next big thing has to be optimised for <3500nm. Thats also why the 321 is the go to aircraft for now, its performance is unmatched <3500nm and why the XLR is such a success. It increases the market potential above the main target market with near to no investment needed.

Optimized for 1000nm with the ability to fly 2400nm is the heart of the market. The A321XLR gets lots of fanfare on a.net, but it is a small fragment of the market. The A321XLR represents less than 10% of the A320neo backlog https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-orders-2/

I know, isn't it great that a simple modification was able to enhance a short haul aircraft (A321) to increase the order book by 10% while the rest of the family that has its optimal performance at short routes still sells like hot cakes. I think you actually agreed with me. It is not the XLR that is at the heart of the market but the A321 with its amazing performance on short routes. The XLR just increased the market potential by at least 10%.

chiad wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Optimized for 1000nm with the ability to fly 2400nm is the heart of the market. The A321XLR gets lots of fanfare on a.net, but it is a small fragment of the market. The A321XLR represents less than 10% of the A320neo backlog https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-orders-2/

The NEO program was launched in 2010. The XLR was launched in 2019.

Not to mention customers have conversion rights so there is no guarantee or even likelihood that the current backlog will be delivered as it now stands.

It is the growth segment of the market.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

chiad wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Optimized for 1000nm with the ability to fly 2400nm is the heart of the market. The A321XLR gets lots of fanfare on a.net, but it is a small fragment of the market. The A321XLR represents less than 10% of the A320neo backlog https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-orders-2/

The NEO program was launched in 2010. The XLR was launched in 2019.

Are you implying that you expect more than 10% of future A320neo family deliveries will be A321XLRs? The market for long range narrowbodies is a fraction of the market for short haul narrowbodies as is shown on the chart that Keesje posted

That kinda depends on how much of a premium Airbus wants to see for the XLR, which largely depends on how much of a standard they want to make the new section. If they cleaned it up to enable more automation putting it together, they may toss in the RCT for free and turn the XLR only into money if the customer wants a WV beyond 93t. Any airline flying their A321s with one ACT has little downside taking the XLR instead, and with 50ish percent of the order book being A321s the ceiling going forward is essentially whatever share the A321 has in the program.

If you can buy your 93t A321XLR for the price of a vanilla 93t A321neo with 1 ACT there isn´t much reason not to get that added flexibility, even if it comes with cutting a check to get the paperwork for an higher MTOW done.

best regards
Thomas

Revelation wrote:

The indefinite "seemed Boeing might" has been replaced with a more definite "was once expected".

And a direct quote from Boeing's CTO right before PAS:

Boeing wasn’t expected to discuss either the 737 Max or its NMA plans in Paris, saying this spring its focus remains on returning the 737 Max fleet to flight after two crashes and a global grounding.

However, Boeing Chief Technology Officer Greg Hyslop recently said that Boeing plans a Paris NMA announcement.

Questioned about the plane at a conference in Charlotte, Hyslop tantalized the audience by saying, “I suggest you go to the Paris Air Show.”

Hyslop also revealed that Boeing wants to “build” its first 100 NMAs virtually before beginning physical assembly. He said that what some analysts have labeled the 797 “will be a great airplane” built “in an amazing production facility.”

Ref: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... -jets.html

It seems to me Gates is referring to the expectations of folks outside of Boeing. I'm pretty sure there were multiple threads here of very excited folks expecting something at Paris.

But then, three short weeks later, just before the Paris Air Show that Hyslop teased, Mounir (VP Commercial Sales & Marketing) and McAllister (President and CEO of Boeing Commercial) both said the business case was still being worked and that Boeing may not do it.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -air-show/

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.

It seems to me that the business case was never closed. Alternatively, if it was closed, it was apparently not sufficiently robust to survive the MAX grounding and change of leadership.

This is just a thought out loud and given I’m currently recovering concussion, please consider with a grain of salt.

I believe the current A320 purchasable range to be the following:
A319CEO
A320CEO
A321CEO
A319NEO
A320NEO
A321NEO
A3210NEO-LR
A321NEO-XLR

If Airbus are to pursue CF (Carbon Fibre) wing(s) to further update the product, my expectation would be the following for the product range:

A319CEO/NEO: Discontinued, replaced in lieu by A220 series.
A320CEO: Discontinued.
A320NEO: Orderable for ‘X’ years.

I’ve dubbed the CF wing variants as NTO (New Technology Option).
A320-800NTO: a slightly extended fuselage variant based on a previous drawing by Keesje, the A320.5, but incorporating a NCFSRW (New Carbon Fibre, Standard Range Wing).
A321-800NTO: A321 incorporating a NCFSRW.
A321-900NTO: A321 incorporating a NCFLRW (New Carbon Fibre, Long Range Wing). Increased Wing with folding wing tips. Could potentially include a 4 wheel Main Landing Gear bogie or confine this to an LR option.
A322-800NTO: Self explanatory at this point.
A322-900NTO: as per the A321-900.

Just some thoughts whilst I’m attempting to manage pain killers.

scbriml wrote:

It seems to me that the business case was never closed.

That doesn't jive with the quote from Boeing's CTO. To me it's more likely that the business case closed internally, this was known by the CTO and people at his level, they were on track for an announcement at PAS, but that never happened after the MCAS tragedy made it imprudent to proceed with an announcement. Later on, the new CEO delivered the coupe de gras.

scbriml wrote:

Alternatively, if it was closed, it was apparently not sufficiently robust to survive the MAX grounding and change of leadership.

That seems most likely to me.

RJMAZ wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Does a 110t aircraft not anyway need a new gear (double boogie) and than Airbus can also increase ground clearance in anticipation of newer higher bypass engines (or what ever comes next) just to have that already done for the future?

No stronger or higher landing gear is required. The runway loading of the A321 is not very high. The landing and takeoff speeds will be lower with the big wing so a slightly higher weight won't see an increase in loads.

The bigger wing needs less thrust. Like the 777X the GE9X has a higher bypass ratio with less thrust and a slightly bigger fan. The engines were mounted slightly further outboard for greater clearance.

flipdewaf wrote:

I like the idea of what you have there but the wing seems too small for 110t MTOW. The wing loading would suggest it’ll still have the same altitude restrictions as the A321. I think my previous calcs put it at about 153m^2.

After deducting the fuselage width going to a 41m wingspan is a 16.5% increase in span. For a 9% increase in MTOW at 110t.

Its not about span its about area (more properly wing loading) and available buffet margin when at high cruise lift coefficients.

Incidentally why would you delete the fuselage width from span?

Fred

VSMUT wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Airbus had to launch those because there was nothing else and they could easily do it.

No, they didn't. They could have just sat back and kept selling the basic A321neo. Airlines didn't have a choice. The aircraft was flying out of the factory. That would have been the no-brainer.

Opus99 wrote:

The 321XLR is their current MOM answer by default. They also want to see what Boeing will launch before they move.

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.

Opus99 wrote:

There’s no benefit in launching before hand and bringing out a product that will be dominated.

Gobbling up enough of the market so that your competitor can't justify launching an up-to-date product is a pretty big benefit. It's not a method that's limited to one side, Boeing attempted to kill off the A330neo in its infancy by pushing discounted 787s.

Of course Airbus didnt have to launch. They saw an opportunity to accelerate the retirement of the 757 and lock up some more marketshare. With that said the XLR proved there is a market for a MOM. But the 757s continue to fly as well. In an ideal world I dont think the XLR is the MOM airbus would present to the world. But there is no competition and it took minimal resources to convert and thus why not capture ~1000 frames?

I dont think long term the XLR will make or break Boeings plane in this space. With upgauging due to demand happening for the past 30 years. The market is fluid and will accept more than what the XLR will consume. COVID has also put a pause on a lot of this as there is an unknown factor for demand for all aircraft.

I for one would love to see what an A322 looks like. And pretty please AB make a useable L2 on the plane!

Elementalism wrote:

With that said the XLR proved there is a market for a MOM.

See, I'm still not convinced that this is strictly true the way you have described it.
The XLR proves there is a market for longer range narrowbodys of an existing family in that space.

I don't think that's the same as proving that there is sufficient market to invest in launching a whole new plane into.

Ultimately there may prove to be enough space for Boeing to launch NMA, but the XLR of itself doesn't prove that. That's just wrong IMO
In fact it takes away some of the space. Which has the opposite effect of the one you have described.

In my opinion

Rgds

RJMAZ wrote:

The A322 probably can't even use the XLR wing. The A322 landing weight would probably be 10% higher than the A321XLR so it will be landing fast and heavy. The extra fuselage drag of the longer A322 will probably need more powerful engines compared to what the current engines can do.

The new big folding wing would reduce the landing speed to well below the current A321 at the same weight. This allows the landing weight to be higher and have a chance to stay with the current gear limits. The bigger wing will also need less thrust for takeoff so the current engines can be used.

Using the existing A321XLR might not save much money if it needs stronger gear, wingbox and more powerful engines. Fuel burn is also increased using the XLR wing. The big folding wing can keep most of the original aircraft and gets a fuel burn saving.

I think the 101t MTOW bump of the A321XLR provides a solid base for an 101t (or 100t?) MTOW A322. Trading capacity for range. A321NEO range seems fine for an A322NEO. If you need more range than an A322NEO can offer -> A321XLR ? Same engines (or the long awaited 35k lbs variants), landing gear, wingbox, all the same for 101t MTOW.

Does a A321XLR /A322NEO cover the complete middle market? No, it doesn't have to. It seems A is happy to let someone else take the 20% left, at 5x the costs & risk.

I think the new wing project goals are to develop new technology for new aircraft, maybe H2, so without fuel, if governments restrict, subsidize enough.

The big business case for a Boeing MOM is the worry that the company will shrink into irrelevance if it does not. The MAX and 777X are/will be only marginally competitive. The 787 is great and likely will outsell the 350, but one great plane is not enough. One of Airbus's advantages is that France and Germany expect it to build great planes and hire a lot of people. Boeing after the infamous takeover and moving headquarters elsewhere is first and most about paying stockholders (who sometimes only can see as far as the next quarter). A MOM will be expensive, and may barely be profitable - but it, or something the equivalent, will keep Boeing in the game.

I suspect that this is something in the back of the minds of those who seem 'fanboys' of the MOM. It is not fandom, it is necessity for Boeing to do something, and do it well.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The big business case for a Boeing MOM is the worry that the company will shrink into irrelevance if it does not. The MAX and 777X are/will be only marginally competitive. The 787 is great and likely will outsell the 350, but one great plane is not enough. One of Airbus's advantages is that France and Germany expect it to build great planes and hire a lot of people. Boeing after the infamous takeover and moving headquarters elsewhere is first and most about paying stockholders (who sometimes only can see as far as the next quarter). A MOM will be expensive, and may barely be profitable - but it, or something the equivalent, will keep Boeing in the game.

I suspect that this is something in the back of the minds of those who seem 'fanboys' of the MOM. It is not fandom, it is necessity for Boeing to do something, and do it well.

If that is the case, It would make more sense for Boeing to accelerate development of a Truss Braced Wing NSA to guarantee that next 15-20% efficiency improvement, which engines alone will not do unless they go with open rotor.

If they went for a moonshot combining TBW and open rotor they could easily get 25%+ over the MAX/NEO assuming service intro in the early to mid 2030's.

Launching MOM this year or next would likely mean service intro close to 2030, pushing NSA to 2040 and completely handing the market to Airbus in exchange for a plane that will never see anything remotely close to narrowbody production volumes.

744... That is an interesting next move. I don't have the aviation background to evaluate. This could make an informative thread. My comment was somewhat off topic on this one.

744SPX wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The big business case for a Boeing MOM is the worry that the company will shrink into irrelevance if it does not. The MAX and 777X are/will be only marginally competitive. The 787 is great and likely will outsell the 350, but one great plane is not enough. One of Airbus's advantages is that France and Germany expect it to build great planes and hire a lot of people. Boeing after the infamous takeover and moving headquarters elsewhere is first and most about paying stockholders (who sometimes only can see as far as the next quarter). A MOM will be expensive, and may barely be profitable - but it, or something the equivalent, will keep Boeing in the game.

I suspect that this is something in the back of the minds of those who seem 'fanboys' of the MOM. It is not fandom, it is necessity for Boeing to do something, and do it well.

If that is the case, It would make more sense for Boeing to accelerate development of a Truss Braced Wing NSA to guarantee that next 15-20% efficiency improvement, which engines alone will not do unless they go with open rotor.

If they went for a moonshot combining TBW and open rotor they could easily get 25%+ over the MAX/NEO assuming service intro in the early to mid 2030's.

Launching MOM this year or next would likely mean service intro close to 2030, pushing NSA to 2040 and completely handing the market to Airbus in exchange for a plane that will never see anything remotely close to narrowbody production volumes.

I agree the transonic truss braced wing concept may be the next iteration on wing design. Boeing already has done a composite rewing with folding wingtips on the 777x. It’ll be interesting to see if Airbus goes for a composite rewing and if Boeing stays with that concept or goes to a composite truss braced wing design in the future.

It has estimated such wings can reduce an aircraft’s fuel burn by 8-10% compared to aircraft with conventional cantilevered wings.

Source https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 14.article

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The big business case for a Boeing MOM is the worry that the company will shrink into irrelevance if it does not. The MAX and 777X are/will be only marginally competitive. The 787 is great and likely will outsell the 350, but one great plane is not enough. One of Airbus's advantages is that France and Germany expect it to build great planes and hire a lot of people. Boeing after the infamous takeover and moving headquarters elsewhere is first and most about paying stockholders (who sometimes only can see as far as the next quarter). A MOM will be expensive, and may barely be profitable - but it, or something the equivalent, will keep Boeing in the game.

I suspect that this is something in the back of the minds of those who seem 'fanboys' of the MOM. It is not fandom, it is necessity for Boeing to do something, and do it well.

Still on the fence about the 777X, but I think the MAX will be a lot stronger than you portray. It might not make 50% of the market, but 45% will still generate a LOT of money..... going forward that is.... I think the MAX-10 will do well.

Rgds

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus has been testing an electric wing on the A320. All hydraulics replace by electric or electro hydraulic actuators. It provides a significant weight reduction.

How does this compare to the existing technology in the 787 wing?

DocLightning wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus has been testing an electric wing on the A320. All hydraulics replace by electric or electro hydraulic actuators. It provides a significant weight reduction.

How does this compare to the existing technology in the 787 wing?

That's a good question.

The Guardian had a good news article about the folding CFRP wing for the A320 family some 3 years ago.

The good parts are at the end of the news story, past all the brexit stuff. I have quoted the important paragraphs below:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... stol-wales

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

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

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

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

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

According to this news story, with the source being a named Airbus research manager, the new wing for the A320 family will have a wing span between 40 and 44 meters, with a folding wing tip so it will be C gate compatable when parked. Expected drag improvements will be 12 %, and with the new wing, thrust requirements will be reduced. The wing will enter production in 2028 at the latest. The production process will be highly automated.

reidar76 wrote:

The Guardian had a good news article about the folding CFRP wing for the A320 family some 3 years ago.

The good parts are at the end of the news story, past all the brexit stuff. I have quoted the important paragraphs below:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... stol-wales

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

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

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

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

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

According to this news story, with the source being a named Airbus research manager, the new wing for the A320 family will have a wing span between 40 and 44 meters, with a folding wing tip so it will be C gate compatable when parked. Expected drag improvements will be 12 %, and with the new wing, thrust requirements will be reduced. The wing will enter production in 2028 at the latest. The production process will be highly automated.

“We’re developing a folding wing tip,” he said. “On a single-aisle jet like the A320, this gives a longer wing and is more aerodynamic"

A folding wing for a SA like the A320. I think we often see R&D entities promoting their research and products to ensure support, subsidies, program continuity.

Changing over to a new wing for the A320 series would be a huge, risky change. For now I assume Airbus is on a "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" course.

astuteman wrote:

Still on the fence about the 777X, but I think the MAX will be a lot stronger than you portray. It might not make 50% of the market, but 45% will still generate a LOT of money..... going forward that is.... I think the MAX-10 will do well.

Rgds

You could wander down the corridor and ask the Ultrafan team what putting that on an A350 will do to 777X competitiveness and the way -X EIS is going if Airbus launched the NEO program now (unlikely) they would only be a year or two behind. IMHO the MAX is one crash away from permanent grounding so I'm not betting on a resurgent Boeing right now.

Polot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Yep. And what about winglets? They disappeared in the 779 because of the folding? What could be done on smaller planes?

Winglets disappeared on the 787 without any folding. When Boeing was allowed more span because the Navy P-8 version of 737 did not need to fit airport gates, it got raked wingtips rather than winglets. There were other reasons for that too (raked wingtips shed ice better, etc) but it shows winglets aren't necessarily the way to go.

One explanation I read was that winglets are a fix for wings designed before the performance degradation of wingtip vortices was well understood where span can't be increased. There are other ways to approach the problem on all-new wings and/or when span can be increased.

They (winglets) are also gone on the E2 series

So eventually all advantages provided where not existent? I saw some documentary which showed improvement over turbolences.

How about putting ram air turbines on the wingtips to harvest wake vortex energy?

Kikko19 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Winglets disappeared on the 787 without any folding. When Boeing was allowed more span because the Navy P-8 version of 737 did not need to fit airport gates, it got raked wingtips rather than winglets. There were other reasons for that too (raked wingtips shed ice better, etc) but it shows winglets aren't necessarily the way to go.

One explanation I read was that winglets are a fix for wings designed before the performance degradation of wingtip vortices was well understood where span can't be increased. There are other ways to approach the problem on all-new wings and/or when span can be increased.

They (winglets) are also gone on the E2 series

So eventually all advantages provided where not existent? I saw some documentary which showed improvement over turbolences.

Winglets are better than no wing tip device, so all the old conventional wings (757, 767, 330, 320, etc.) got them as an add on feature to improve the wing with relative low effort. If you can design a clean sheet wing you nowadays have better designs than the winglets (and all its variants). That is why on newer wings (787, A350, 777X, 330neo) you do not see them. Also newer NB aircraft do not feature them E2.

FluidFlow wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Polot wrote:

They (winglets) are also gone on the E2 series

So eventually all advantages provided where not existent? I saw some documentary which showed improvement over turbolences.

Winglets are better than no wing tip device, so all the old conventional wings (757, 767, 330, 320, etc.) got them as an add on feature to improve the wing with relative low effort. If you can design a clean sheet wing you nowadays have better designs than the winglets (and all its variants). That is why on newer wings (787, A350, 777X, 330neo) you do not see them. Also newer NB aircraft do not feature them E2.

Roger that. Still a220 got them, maybe they will receive improved wing eventually.

keesje wrote:

Changing over to a new wing for the A320 series would be a huge, risky change. For now I assume Airbus is on a "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" course.

I think it is a safe bet that eventually the new wing will find its way to big chunk of mainline A320s. The question is just how and when.

Many have wondered how on earth it takes so long to certify and EIS the A321XLR model? From 2019 to 2023 when the talk is only doing minimal changes. What is going on? What if A has actually all the time been planning to put the new wing into XLR model surprising everybody and the reason why certification and EIS has been planned to be delayed so late is that A has been waiting for the new wing to get ready. After the wing has been certified into XLR model it is easier job to backport it into A321 line as an option while waiting if the stretch into A322 happens.

The A350 wingtips are bend upwards.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350

The A220 wing are bend stronger, but not right angle.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

Ertro wrote:

keesje wrote:

Changing over to a new wing for the A320 series would be a huge, risky change. For now I assume Airbus is on a "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" course.

I think it is a safe bet that eventually the new wing will find its way to big chunk of mainline A320s. The question is just how and when.

Many have wondered how on earth it takes so long to certify and EIS the A321XLR model? From 2019 to 2023 when the talk is only doing minimal changes. What is going on? What if A has actually all the time been planning to put the new wing into XLR model surprising everybody and the reason why certification and EIS has been planned to be delayed so late is that A has been waiting for the new wing to get ready. After the wing has been certified into XLR model it is easier job to backport it into A321 line as an option while waiting if the stretch into A322 happens.

You are underestimating the time it takes to develop, produce, and certify even “simple” changes like the XLR. Which will only get worse in the future with increased focus on certification due to the MAX.

Also you have to consider production slots. There is no use rushing to produce and certify an aircraft if production is already booked solid in the near future and the only way anyone can get it is by converting existing orders (Airbus wants you to order more planes on top of the ones you already have on order, and to win over new customers).

There is not going to be a surprise new wing. Certifying authorities certainly don’t like surprises and we would know by now if Airbus was trying to certify a new wing.

FluidFlow wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Polot wrote:

They (winglets) are also gone on the E2 series

So eventually all advantages provided where not existent? I saw some documentary which showed improvement over turbolences.

Winglets are better than no wing tip device, so all the old conventional wings (757, 767, 330, 320, etc.) got them as an add on feature to improve the wing with relative low effort. If you can design a clean sheet wing you nowadays have better designs than the winglets (and all its variants). That is why on newer wings (787, A350, 777X, 330neo) you do not see them. Also newer NB aircraft do not feature them E2.

Big difference is that the C-Series, A320 familiy are at the maximum for C gates, while the E2 planes had much room to grow from their previous gen.