The new wing is supposed to be cheaper to produce and A is happy to convert some existing 321 orders into NWO model because customers are paying extra for something that is cheaper to produce. Even if there is no extra orders and zero changes to production slots this is a win for A. More money in. Less money out.

Who knows what A has been talking to EASA and FAA. Maybe they know about the wing. The question is not how long it takes to certify a simple change but rather is there now enough time to certify a big change and judging from how fast people estimate B can certify a cleansheet new plane it sounds to me like A has now enough time.

It just seems silly to sit on a new wing for 5 years doing nothing with it when it could be out there earning money and this is the most obvious way to make it happen. Not doing this is silly.

Ertro wrote:

The new wing is supposed to be cheaper to produce and A is happy to convert some existing 321 orders into NWO model because customers are paying extra for something that is cheaper to produce. Even if there is no extra orders and zero changes to production slots this is a win for A. More money in. Less money out.

Who knows what A has been talking to EASA and FAA. Maybe they know about the wing. The question is not how long it takes to certify a simple change but rather is there now enough time to certify a big change and judging from how fast people estimate B can certify a cleansheet new plane it sounds to me like A has now enough time.

It just seems silly to sit on a new wing for 5 years doing nothing with it when it could be out there earning money and this is the most obvious way to make it happen. Not doing this is silly.

New wings cost a lot of money to develop and certify. Airbus is not going to sell an XLR with pricing based on a “simple change” with old wing, secretly develop a new wing, and surprise customers by giving them a new wing. Airbus is not that generous.

Customers don’t want to be planning on old wing then suddenly learn they have a new larger wing that either won’t fit in existing A321 gates or will need new operational procedures (ie folding wingtips).

The industry is not that great at keeping secrets if Airbus was secretly prepping everyone for a new surprise wing on the XLR.

Expecting a surprise wing is setting yourself up for some major disappointment.

A is going to develop and certify the new wing and pay the money to do that in every case.

If the new wing is cheaper to produce then it actually earns money while being generous. Who knows it might even be possible to extract more money from customers that do want to have the extra wing fuel capacity and do not want A to limit fuel capacity in the wing to equal the old wing. If not the A does not care. It is still win for A even if price is the same and A is being generous.

Maybe the cheaper operating costs offset the disappointment of having pilots toggle one more switch.

Polot wrote:

Expecting a surprise wing is setting yourself up for some major disappointment.

Now this is a humorous argument considering what is the purpose of this discussion board and what has been going in here in almost every other discussion topic. Major disappointments all around for everybody. Or not.

Should Airbus go for a new wing and possibly landing gear modification, would'nt they also plan for a potential double stretch, i.e. also for an "A323"?

Apparently the most common assumption is that an "A322" would add something like four economy rows to the existing A321 capacity. In a three-class, MINT-style layout we would be looking at a capacity of 170-175, in a typical short-haul legacy carrier layout with 30in seat pitch at 235-240 and with a high density easyJet or Spirit-style 28-29in seat pitch at 260-270 seats. A second similar stretch would move an A323 capacity-wise into 787-8 territory and also cover a greater market envisaged for the Boeing NMA (pretty much covering the 100-400 seat market with three aircraft families when Boeing needs four to cover 150-450 seats).

Ertro wrote:

The new wing is supposed to be cheaper to produce and A is happy to convert some existing 321 orders into NWO model because customers are paying extra for something that is cheaper to produce. Even if there is no extra orders and zero changes to production slots this is a win for A. More money in. Less money out.

Who knows what A has been talking to EASA and FAA. Maybe they know about the wing. The question is not how long it takes to certify a simple change but rather is there now enough time to certify a big change and judging from how fast people estimate B can certify a cleansheet new plane it sounds to me like A has now enough time.

It just seems silly to sit on a new wing for 5 years doing nothing with it when it could be out there earning money and this is the most obvious way to make it happen. Not doing this is silly.

Sorry, but the goal of the WoT project is to get a wing that costs no more to manufacture than the A321 wing, not cheaper:

But conventional carbonfibre manufacturing is substantially more expensive and requires longer cycle times than traditional aluminium aerostructures. Also, output cannot be simply scaled up - a serious impediment to rising narrowbody production

Partridge’s brief is to develop a production approach that will reduce the manufacturing cost for a composite single-aisle wing to match that of the metal wing on today's A321. Additionally, the system will need to support output of 60 aircraft per month within two years of a programme launch – “the critical bit of the target”, she notes – and be capable of reaching rate 100 at a later stage.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 76.article

Meeting cost parity is a difficult goal. Given that CFRP is a costlier raw material than AL and its use is far less evolved than AL, it's not clear if even that goal will be reached.

As Astuteman emphasized earlier, we are talking about an R&D project. Usually goals are set aggressively for these. The outcome of this will be three different physical articles and a bunch of data. After that, Airbus would have to spend $billions more to build the full scale production line and do all the testing needed for certification. All that adds additional cost beyond the current wing, which, as above, at best will cost the same to manufacture.

I hope you don't think I'm sandbagging you. In fact I am not, I gave this same link on Page 1 of this thread and advised that people should read more to understand what is actually going on.

Ertro wrote:

Major disappointments all around for everybody.

Pot, meet kettle.

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?

A lot.


Airbus, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1460523

The XLR is as significant modification of the center box, tanks, section 17 and inner wing, landing gears Trading A320 family commonality for range & belly space. Using that investment in time and money for a straight 101t A322 version seems to make sense. A light, quiet efficient regional people mover. Up to 250 seats decently.

Revelation wrote:

...

Are we back at the argument that B can make 2 completely new plane families with 3 variants each no problem but one wing is too much for A to handle.
I guess both require new factories but 2 cleansheet planes much more so and I have not seen a single argument claiming that B should forget MoM because it involves building production lines.

I remember reading from somewhere that the new wing is supposed to be cheaper but even if it is not it does not really matter.
B can sell a bunch of 787s at loss for years but it still makes sense for B.

The wing is going to happen sooner of later and it will involve certification costs and building production lines and possibly even selling first examples at loss.
Whatever happens it is going to be much more economically sensible than cleansheet for the same space.

Or not. I am writing all this in slightly entertained state of mind and if your pot or kettle is also slightly entertained then good for you.

Ertro wrote:

Revelation wrote:

...

Are we back at the argument that B can make 2 completely new plane families with 3 variants each no problem but one wing is too much for A to handle.
I guess both require new factories but 2 cleansheet planes much more so and I have not seen a single argument claiming that B should forget MoM because it involves building production lines.

I remember reading from somewhere that the new wing is supposed to be cheaper but even if it is not it does not really matter.
B can sell a bunch of 787s at loss for years but it still makes sense for B.

The wing is going to happen sooner of later and it will involve certification costs and building production lines and possibly even selling first examples at loss.
Whatever happens it is going to be much more economically sensible than cleansheet for the same space.

Or not. I am writing all this in slightly entertained state of mind and if your pot or kettle is also slightly entertained then good for you.

Thanks, I think.

Bottom line, read the links I've posted here and on Page 1 and let the facts inform you.

They say nothing about the relative merits of A and B, and neither did I, so let's not go there.

WoT is a great research projects with great goals.

I'm confident it will result in tech that will be in production in the not too distant future with great positive impact on the aviation industry.

It's exciting to project the future, but the risk is we let ourselves get too far out in front of reality.

Like I said, do the reading, take in what it is and what it is not.

Revelation wrote:

Ertro wrote:

The new wing is supposed to be cheaper to produce and A is happy to convert some existing 321 orders into NWO model because customers are paying extra for something that is cheaper to produce. Even if there is no extra orders and zero changes to production slots this is a win for A. More money in. Less money out.

Who knows what A has been talking to EASA and FAA. Maybe they know about the wing. The question is not how long it takes to certify a simple change but rather is there now enough time to certify a big change and judging from how fast people estimate B can certify a cleansheet new plane it sounds to me like A has now enough time.

It just seems silly to sit on a new wing for 5 years doing nothing with it when it could be out there earning money and this is the most obvious way to make it happen. Not doing this is silly.

Sorry, but the goal of the WoT project is to get a wing that costs no more to manufacture than the A321 wing, not cheaper:

But conventional carbonfibre manufacturing is substantially more expensive and requires longer cycle times than traditional aluminium aerostructures. Also, output cannot be simply scaled up - a serious impediment to rising narrowbody production

Partridge’s brief is to develop a production approach that will reduce the manufacturing cost for a composite single-aisle wing to match that of the metal wing on today's A321. Additionally, the system will need to support output of 60 aircraft per month within two years of a programme launch – “the critical bit of the target”, she notes – and be capable of reaching rate 100 at a later stage.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 76.article

Meeting cost parity is a difficult goal. Given that CFRP is a costlier raw material than AL and its use is far less evolved than AL, it's not clear if even that goal will be reached.

As Astuteman emphasized earlier, we are talking about an R&D project. Usually goals are set aggressively for these. The outcome of this will be three different physical articles and a bunch of data. After that, Airbus would have to spend $billions more to build the full scale production line and do all the testing needed for certification. All that adds additional cost beyond the current wing, which, as above, at best will cost the same to manufacture.

I hope you don't think I'm sandbagging you. In fact I am not, I gave this same link on Page 1 of this thread and advised that people should read more to understand what is actually going on.

Ertro wrote:

Major disappointments all around for everybody.

Pot, meet kettle.

Airbus is not only doing the research and development for a new A320 family CFRP wing, but has actually done and is producing two CFRP wings in house. The wings for the A350 and A400M. They furthermore use and have the information on the wing of the A220.
I would call that quite extensive experience. Airbus should be in the best position to judge the cost and possibilities of that CFRP wing.

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus should be in the best position to judge the cost and possibilities of that CFRP wing.

Right, and it is Airbus who is saying the goal of the WoT program is to get to cost parity with the A321 AL wing, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Sokes wrote:

Funny that planes have to be built for the airports, not airports for the planes.

Airports were build for planes. Now that there are so many of them, maybe it's better to make planes that fit these airports. Even if it's a relatively new phenomenon.

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Ertro wrote:

The new wing is supposed to be cheaper to produce and A is happy to convert some existing 321 orders into NWO model because customers are paying extra for something that is cheaper to produce. Even if there is no extra orders and zero changes to production slots this is a win for A. More money in. Less money out.

Who knows what A has been talking to EASA and FAA. Maybe they know about the wing. The question is not how long it takes to certify a simple change but rather is there now enough time to certify a big change and judging from how fast people estimate B can certify a cleansheet new plane it sounds to me like A has now enough time.

It just seems silly to sit on a new wing for 5 years doing nothing with it when it could be out there earning money and this is the most obvious way to make it happen. Not doing this is silly.

Sorry, but the goal of the WoT project is to get a wing that costs no more to manufacture than the A321 wing, not cheaper:

But conventional carbonfibre manufacturing is substantially more expensive and requires longer cycle times than traditional aluminium aerostructures. Also, output cannot be simply scaled up - a serious impediment to rising narrowbody production

Partridge’s brief is to develop a production approach that will reduce the manufacturing cost for a composite single-aisle wing to match that of the metal wing on today's A321. Additionally, the system will need to support output of 60 aircraft per month within two years of a programme launch – “the critical bit of the target”, she notes – and be capable of reaching rate 100 at a later stage.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 76.article

Meeting cost parity is a difficult goal. Given that CFRP is a costlier raw material than AL and its use is far less evolved than AL, it's not clear if even that goal will be reached.

As Astuteman emphasized earlier, we are talking about an R&D project. Usually goals are set aggressively for these. The outcome of this will be three different physical articles and a bunch of data. After that, Airbus would have to spend $billions more to build the full scale production line and do all the testing needed for certification. All that adds additional cost beyond the current wing, which, as above, at best will cost the same to manufacture.

I hope you don't think I'm sandbagging you. In fact I am not, I gave this same link on Page 1 of this thread and advised that people should read more to understand what is actually going on.

Ertro wrote:

Major disappointments all around for everybody.

Pot, meet kettle.

Airbus is not only doing the research and development for a new A320 family CFRP wing, but has actually done and is producing two CFRP wings in house. The wings for the A350 and A400M. They furthermore use and have the information on the wing of the A220.
I would call that quite extensive experience. Airbus should be in the best position to judge the cost and possibilities of that CFRP wing.

In terms of this new wing development they have gone further, they have multiple R&D ptohects in the area. They have already built and flown an outer wing box demonstrator on the c295 that was built in one U shaped price and the resin infused.

Source https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... x/template

While they have significant experience building composite primary structures, most have been by automatic tape layering techniques, this technology is big, expensive, relatively slow, and the tolerances are not as good as an infused structure, we have seen the issues this has recently presented on the 787 with the shims. The other issue with that technique is it involves building up multiple parts and then connecting them which adds time, cost, complexity.

The infusion process Airbus has demonstrated on the c294 includes lightweight tooling that can be transported with ease to other sites, they want to have a process that will enable them to build 100 wings a month for the narrow body jet, existing technology on the A350 is expensive to ramp up from its 10 per month. The lightweight tooling for example could enable them to setup wing production in the A380 production facility in TLS and XFW, as well in the US. So they could have 4 sites producing 25 wings a month, U.K., TLS, XFW, and US.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus should be in the best position to judge the cost and possibilities of that CFRP wing.

Right, and it is Airbus who is saying the goal of the WoT program is to get to cost parity with the A321 AL wing, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I want to say that there is no other producer around that has as much experience at designing and producing CFRP wings compared to Airbus.

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus should be in the best position to judge the cost and possibilities of that CFRP wing.

Right, and it is Airbus who is saying the goal of the WoT program is to get to cost parity with the A321 AL wing, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I want to say that there is no other producer around that has as much experience at designing and producing CFRP wings compared to Airbus.

Your comment confuses me. I’ve always been under the impression that the first composite carbon fiber wing was on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Boeing later used some of the composite expertise from fighter jets on the 787.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Right, and it is Airbus who is saying the goal of the WoT program is to get to cost parity with the A321 AL wing, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I want to say that there is no other producer around that has as much experience at designing and producing CFRP wings compared to Airbus.

Your comment confuses me. I’ve always been under the impression that the first composite carbon fiber wing was on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Boeing later used some of the composite expertise from fighter jets on the 787.

This feels like we're heading into willy-waving territory.

I think we can agree that both A and B have huge amounts of experience in designing and producing CFRP wings and leave it at that.

There's no way to prove the "no other producer around that has as much experience" part, so we should just drop that.

Revelation wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I want to say that there is no other producer around that has as much experience at designing and producing CFRP wings compared to Airbus.

Your comment confuses me. I’ve always been under the impression that the first composite carbon fiber wing was on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Boeing later used some of the composite expertise from fighter jets on the 787.

This feels like we're heading into willy-waving territory.

I think we can agree that both A and B have huge amounts of experience in designing and producing CFRP wings and leave it at that.

There's no way to prove the "no other producer around that has as much experience" part, so we should just drop that.

Makes sense. There’s little to backup declarative statement that one is more experienced or better than the other.

zeke wrote:

Source https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... x/template

While they have significant experience building composite primary structures, most have been by automatic tape layering techniques, this technology is big, expensive, relatively slow, and the tolerances are not as good as an infused structure, we have seen the issues this has recently presented on the 787 with the shims. The other issue with that technique is it involves building up multiple parts and then connecting them which adds time, cost, complexity.

The infusion process Airbus has demonstrated on the c294 includes lightweight tooling that can be transported with ease to other sites, they want to have a process that will enable them to build 100 wings a month for the narrow body jet, existing technology on the A350 is expensive to ramp up from its 10 per month. The lightweight tooling for example could enable them to setup wing production in the A380 production facility in TLS and XFW, as well in the US. So they could have 4 sites producing 25 wings a month, U.K., TLS, XFW, and US.

Thank you for those references Zeke. It all appears to have real potential!

keesje wrote:

Trading A320 family commonality for range & belly space.

If they manage to backport the new single slotted flap design and some other enhancements
to the smaller models they have actually gained commonality : single flap design (with improved aero) over the whole family.
The Xtra Tank is a "once, lifetime" thing.
HL devices are maintenance/repair/replacement targets.

Any thing about integrating the "more electric" wing stuff they've tested in the recent past?

WIederling wrote:

keesje wrote:

Trading A320 family commonality for range & belly space.

If they manage to backport the new single slotted flap design and some other enhancements
to the smaller models they have actually gained commonality : single flap design (with improved aero) over the whole family.
The Xtra Tank is a "once, lifetime" thing.
HL devices are maintenance/repair/replacement targets.

Any thing about integrating the "more electric" wing stuff they've tested in the recent past?

I don't know, maybe we overrate commonality here.

For instance, Airbus was happily building A330 and A340 wings on the same line right from the start. Since they still make MRTT and it needs hard points exposed it presumably still has elements of the A340 yet we also know they have optimized the wing for A330. That's a lot of variation. As you say, those are 'once, lifetime' things but still add cost and complexity.

I wonder how the new electric rudder will be rolled out. Flag day where every following A320 LN will have it, or maybe a few "head of line" variants till it becomes the full standard?

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

keesje wrote:

Trading A320 family commonality for range & belly space.

If they manage to backport the new single slotted flap design and some other enhancements
to the smaller models they have actually gained commonality : single flap design (with improved aero) over the whole family.
The Xtra Tank is a "once, lifetime" thing.
HL devices are maintenance/repair/replacement targets.

Any thing about integrating the "more electric" wing stuff they've tested in the recent past?

I don't know, maybe we overrate commonality here.

For instance, Airbus was happily building A330 and A340 wings on the same line right from the start. Since they still make MRTT and it needs hard points exposed it presumably still has elements of the A340 yet we also know they have optimized the wing for A330. That's a lot of variation. As you say, those are 'once, lifetime' things but still add cost and complexity.

I wonder how the new electric rudder will be rolled out. Flag day where every following A320 LN will have it, or maybe a few "head of line" variants till it becomes the full standard?

It is actually the other way around. The original wing of the A330 and A340 are the same. The A340 had extra equipment in the same structure part of that equipment was used for the MRTT. Now the wing has been changed for the A330neo, mainly removal of structure needed for the A340 and some strengthening for the new big winglet.
I personally still look at the A330/340-200/300 as the same frame, no structural differences between wing and fuselage between those. The A340-500/600 was different.

The A320 wing and A321 wings are not the same. The A321 wing has slightly more area, a different profile, different flaps and the tank is different (simplified). Those things have not been backported. Now for the XLR the flaps are changed and perhaps some structure for the increased MTOW. The flaps will be single slotted as on the A320, but not the same, they are supposed to be more effective than the dual slotted ones on the current A321. I assume that this XLR wing will become standard on the A321neo.

The electric rudder will come with the A321XLR. I assume it will be backported when certified on that frame.

I speculate when we will see the electric wing, electrical or electro hydraulic actuators instead of hydraulic. This low rate production environment now, should be the time to change. But perhaps the test flights brought negative results, or it was decided it needed to much change on the whole system.

mjoelnir wrote:

The electric rudder will come with the A321XLR. I assume it will be backported when certified on that frame.

The electric rudder is being introduced before the A321XLR. It was suppose to be introduced later this year but the pandemic pushed that plan back. It will be standard (and was planned for) on the XLR from the start, and will be standard production on neos by the end 2024.

As for the single slot flaps- whether they are backported depends on whether they are better than the flaps on the A320. They may be better than the double slotted flaps but still heavier than A320’s (which doesn’t really any performance boost from flaps).

I see the wing more as a technology demonstrator than a real product.

seahawk wrote:

I see the wing more as a technology demonstrator than a real product.

That may well be, but it was supposed to reduce weight.

mjoelnir wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I see the wing more as a technology demonstrator than a real product.

That may well be, but it was supposed to reduce weight.

The primary purpose is to increase wing size and area while keeping it about the same weight as the current wing.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I see the wing more as a technology demonstrator than a real product.

That may well be, but it was supposed to reduce weight.

The primary purpose is to increase wing size and area while keeping it about the same weight as the current wing.

Exactly.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I see the wing more as a technology demonstrator than a real product.

That may well be, but it was supposed to reduce weight.

The primary purpose is to increase wing size and area while keeping it about the same weight as the current wing.

And this for similar production costs. It is a necessity for any successor to the A320NEO, but I am not convinced we will see the wing on an A320 any time soon.

seahawk wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

That may well be, but it was supposed to reduce weight.

The primary purpose is to increase wing size and area while keeping it about the same weight as the current wing.

And this for similar production costs. It is a necessity for any successor to the A320NEO, but I am not convinced we will see the wing on an A320 any time soon.

It makes me wonder at which point the newly emboldened regulators decide to blow the whistle. A rear center tank with stronger gear, MTOW increase and new flaps design is a lot to take on at one time, but it seems to be manageable, just. What happens when you put a new wing on that base yet continue on producing the A320 as-is? Seems like it might be the time for a two year deep dive to make sure nothing is being missed, akin to what is now happening with 777x largely at EASA's insistence.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Polot wrote:

The primary purpose is to increase wing size and area while keeping it about the same weight as the current wing.

And this for similar production costs. It is a necessity for any successor to the A320NEO, but I am not convinced we will see the wing on an A320 any time soon.

It makes me wonder at which point the newly emboldened regulators decide to blow the whistle. A rear center tank with stronger gear, MTOW increase and new flaps design is a lot to take on at one time, but it seems to be manageable, just. What happens when you put a new wing on that base yet continue on producing the A320 as-is? Seems like it might be the time for a two year deep dive to make sure nothing is being missed, akin to what is now happening with 777x largely at EASA's insistence.

Each A320 to A320neo family conversion was at least a year test campaign, with the first one A320 to A320 GTF taking 15 month from the start of the tests to first delivery. The XLR test flight plan assumes 2 years. So Airbus does not seem to skimp on test flying.

We have to add that Airbus is steadily flying its former test frames to test this and that proposed change or demonstrator.

I do not think that it matters Airbus building old versions in parallel with new ones. Both versions are fully certified when produced in parallel. The newer A320 family FAL are designed to produce different models mixed one after the other.

Trust is something you get after years of proving quality of your product. Sadly, Boeing lost all credibility with the MAX disaster. I don't see Airbus doing the same mistake.

mjoelnir wrote:

Each A320 to A320neo family conversion was at least a year test campaign, with the first one A320 to A320 GTF taking 15 month from the start of the tests to first delivery. The XLR test flight plan assumes 2 years. So Airbus does not seem to skimp on test flying.

We have to add that Airbus is steadily flying its former test frames to test this and that proposed change or demonstrator.

I do not think that it matters Airbus building old versions in parallel with new ones. Both versions are fully certified when produced in parallel. The newer A320 family FAL are designed to produce different models mixed one after the other.

Everything you are saying is quite sound, but I think one of the "lessons learned" from the MAX tragedy is all the incremental changes add up in unexpected ways and at some point it pays to do a deep dive end to end to make sure nothing is being missed, kind of like what we're now seeing with MAX10 and 777X. It wouldn't be too surprising IMO if a new wing and stretch triggers such a review. I realize Airbus makes many old versions in parallel already, but at some point the complexity becomes problematic.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Each A320 to A320neo family conversion was at least a year test campaign, with the first one A320 to A320 GTF taking 15 month from the start of the tests to first delivery. The XLR test flight plan assumes 2 years. So Airbus does not seem to skimp on test flying.

We have to add that Airbus is steadily flying its former test frames to test this and that proposed change or demonstrator.

I do not think that it matters Airbus building old versions in parallel with new ones. Both versions are fully certified when produced in parallel. The newer A320 family FAL are designed to produce different models mixed one after the other.

Everything you are saying is quite sound, but I think one of the "lessons learned" from the MAX tragedy is all the incremental changes add up in unexpected ways and at some point it pays to do a deep dive end to end to make sure nothing is being missed, kind of like what we're now seeing with MAX10 and 777X. It wouldn't be too surprising IMO if a new wing and stretch triggers such a review. I realize Airbus makes many old versions in parallel already, but at some point the complexity becomes problematic.

There is the main difference between the 737 and the A320 the FBW.
Just that MCAS example. The 767 had MCAS before the MAX. Several sensors responsible for activation. Was it backportable to the MAX? Not really. Even with both frames not having a FBW, the 767 has more sensors, more computing power and EICAS allowing a structured error presentation.

Backporting a feature from the A330, A350 and A380 to the A320? Some programming work. Protection from certain new stall conditions? Add some programming to the stall protection.
I am sure Airbus has from time to time some clean up work to do. But think about the security of running two different flight computers, based on two different system architectures and running different programs, checking each other. Very difficult to get the same error condition on both systems.

seahawk wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

That may well be, but it was supposed to reduce weight.

The primary purpose is to increase wing size and area while keeping it about the same weight as the current wing.

And this for similar production costs. It is a necessity for any successor to the A320NEO, but I am not convinced we will see the wing on an A320 any time soon.

Me neither.. I think we will see it on an A320.5 (slightly stretched) .
A220 will grow to fill the A319-A320 void in time, they'll get the manufacturing costs down....

Revelation wrote:

Everything you are saying is quite sound, but I think one of the "lessons learned" from the MAX tragedy is all the incremental changes add up in unexpected ways and at some point it pays to do a deep dive end to end to make sure nothing is being missed, kind of like what we're now seeing with MAX10 and 777X. It wouldn't be too surprising IMO if a new wing and stretch triggers such a review. I realize Airbus makes many old versions in parallel already, but at some point the complexity becomes problematic.

I agree. But 737MAX was Gen4. A320NEO was Gen barely a Gen2.
I suspect when this wing is released (or it is better to say a composite wing that is the result of this R&D work is released), it will correspond to a full A320 Gen3 effort... The A320 will be stretched (I kind of agree with Keesje on this one with the A320.5), A321 will stay the same size, and there will be an A322. It will no doubt be a full test campaign with quite a bit of review. These will be pre-emptive moves to make sure the narrow body split stays 60-40.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Polot wrote:

The primary purpose is to increase wing size and area while keeping it about the same weight as the current wing.

And this for similar production costs. It is a necessity for any successor to the A320NEO, but I am not convinced we will see the wing on an A320 any time soon.

Me neither.. I think we will see it on an A320.5 (slightly stretched) .

A220 will grow to fill the A319-A320 void in time, they'll get the manufacturing costs down....

I am not sure we will see an A320.5. I think Airbus is fine letting the A320 go the way of the A319 and focus on the A322, A321 and A225 where it can command an premium pricing due to the efficiency advantages…

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Each A320 to A320neo family conversion was at least a year test campaign, with the first one A320 to A320 GTF taking 15 month from the start of the tests to first delivery. The XLR test flight plan assumes 2 years. So Airbus does not seem to skimp on test flying.

We have to add that Airbus is steadily flying its former test frames to test this and that proposed change or demonstrator.

I do not think that it matters Airbus building old versions in parallel with new ones. Both versions are fully certified when produced in parallel. The newer A320 family FAL are designed to produce different models mixed one after the other.

Everything you are saying is quite sound, but I think one of the "lessons learned" from the MAX tragedy is all the incremental changes add up in unexpected ways and at some point it pays to do a deep dive end to end to make sure nothing is being missed, kind of like what we're now seeing with MAX10 and 777X. It wouldn't be too surprising IMO if a new wing and stretch triggers such a review. I realize Airbus makes many old versions in parallel already, but at some point the complexity becomes problematic.

It can pay to do a deep dive but it shouldn't be considered excessively costly by default for the OEM facing such a deep dive. Those deep dives are only becoming prohibitively costly when significant "surprises" await the regulator. The 777X is also a bit of a special case in the sense that Boeing logically didn't anticipate a deep dive when they launched this program so it's not representative of the impact of a deep dive on the cost and duration of certification. If Airbus would ever consider re-winging the A320, they would certainly launch such a program with more certainty about the possibility and the extent of a deep-dive. They could integrate the deep-dive in their development schedule in order to minimize the impact of potential findings.

Regarding the possible trigger for a deep dive, it can originate for various reasons. We tend to focus on significant structural changes (*) because this is what is more visible to us but the trigger could be a significant update of the flight control systems.

(*) on the XLR, it appears from the pictures published by Airbus that the joint of lower lobe of the center tank between the Sections 15 and 17 will use tension bolts while the joints between the fuselage sections are typically shear joints (although I've never seen the details of the Sections 15/17 joint). If the type of joint is indeed modified and considering that this is a primary load path (it's the continuation of the fuselage'skin, the lower lobe of the RCT being integral to the fuselage), this would certainly require some attention and potentially a specific test. From what I could assess from the pictures, the reason for using tension bolts could be that being located outside the fuel tank boundary, there wouldn't be any need for applying any sealant inside the fuel tank after S15/17 have been joined. This is motivated by the fact that the internal volume of the tank has become out of reach for such operations at that stage of the assembly.

JonesNL wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And this for similar production costs. It is a necessity for any successor to the A320NEO, but I am not convinced we will see the wing on an A320 any time soon.

Me neither.. I think we will see it on an A320.5 (slightly stretched) .

A220 will grow to fill the A319-A320 void in time, they'll get the manufacturing costs down....

I am not sure we will see an A320.5. I think Airbus is fine letting the A320 go the way of the A319 and focus on the A322, A321 and A225 where it can command an premium pricing due to the efficiency advantages…

That will depend on how well Airbus can get A220 prices down and rate up. The A225 may be more efficient but if Boeing can pump out 737s cheaper and at higher volumes Airbus can’t sacrifice the A320.

All this study on the wing demonstrates how difficult it can be to (cheaply) ramp up composite wing rates. Is it possible with the A220 design? We will see I guess.

mjoelnir wrote:

There is the main difference between the 737 and the A320 the FBW.

Yet FAA and EASA are doing a deep dive on the 777X which is Boeing's third generation of FBW. I don't think having FBW will grant any degree of regulatory immunity to what we refer to as A322.

tomcat wrote:

If Airbus would ever consider re-winging the A320, they would certainly launch such a program with more certainty about the possibility and the extent of a deep-dive. They could integrate the deep-dive in their development schedule in order to minimize the impact of potential findings.

I agree. In this regard Airbus will benefit from the regulators having a new understanding of what they will or will not accept when adding new members to a type certificate.

What says that deep dive isnt happening already with the XLR? At launch people were surprised it would take 4yrs to expected EIS. Remember the 5-6 year launch timeframe for the ground up NMA which was maintained by Muilenburg when rumors of engine delays started surfacing, up to the moment it got shelved?

Seems to me airbus isnt cutting any corners; and to my knowledge there havent been any signals pointing to that. They dont face competitive pressure to launch within a certain timeframe either.

Lets also not forget the certification process and methodology used by EASA is not the same as that of FAA. Furthermore there havent been any signals of industry pressure, there havent been any EASA budget cuts to my knowledge, nor do I know of a self certification push from the industry or politics. Yet I'm seeing a lot of projection of Boeing on Airbus, and FAA on EASA that just doesnt seem supported by signals that point to problems beyond the well known Boeing - FAA certification relationship.

I know it's sometimes difficult to imagine for Americans especially (not trying to generalise but it is very noticeable to a non-American like me), but a series of problems at an American company doesnt mean those problems are present and endemic at other aviation companies as well. Yet this "worldwide certification overhaul" is presented as fact mainly based on new insights by the joint aviation authorities from the MAX certification process. I dont recall aviation authorities telling us there is a need for a complete overhaul of the certification process, beyond perhaps FAA? I do recall Calhoun stating the need for a complete overhaul of their flight system architecture and underlying assumptions.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

There is the main difference between the 737 and the A320 the FBW.

Yet FAA and EASA are doing a deep dive on the 777X which is Boeing's third generation of FBW. I don't think having FBW will grant any degree of regulatory immunity to what we refer to as A322.

tomcat wrote:

If Airbus would ever consider re-winging the A320, they would certainly launch such a program with more certainty about the possibility and the extent of a deep-dive. They could integrate the deep-dive in their development schedule in order to minimize the impact of potential findings.

I agree. In this regard Airbus will benefit from the regulators having a new understanding of what they will or will not accept when adding new members to a type certificate.

The Boeing´s FBWs are rather monolithic standalone, while the four Airbus FBW frames share a common architecture. So Airbus can port a tried and tested function from one frame to the other.

IMO the trouble with the FAA is a FAA Boeing certification trouble, not a problem throughout the industry. There was never the cozy relationship between EASA and Airbus, as in between Boeing and the FAA that let Boeing walk heavy shooed over the FAA and regulations.

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO the trouble with the FAA is a FAA Boeing certification trouble, not a problem throughout the industry. There was never the cozy relationship between EASA and Airbus, as in between Boeing and the FAA that let Boeing walk heavy shooed over the FAA and regulations.

It can become a problem since Airbus needs FAA certification when selling to US airlines (one of their largest markets), not an EASA certification. Airbus would definitely like as much clarity and insight into FAA’s current certification ideas as possible before they get stuck in a situation where their FAA certification gets delayed because they didn’t provide the desired information. There is also fear in the industry too that if the FAA takes a hard stand on an issue the EASA may as well to avoid appearance of being too lax and close to Airbus like the FAA was (with Boeing).

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO the trouble with the FAA is a FAA Boeing certification trouble, not a problem throughout the industry. There was never the cozy relationship between EASA and Airbus, as in between Boeing and the FAA that let Boeing walk heavy shooed over the FAA and regulations.

It can become a problem since Airbus needs FAA certification when selling to US airlines (one of their largest markets), not an EASA certification. Airbus would definitely like as much clarity and insight into FAA’s current certification ideas as possible before they get stuck in a situation where their FAA certification gets delayed because they didn’t provide the desired information. There is also fear in the industry too that if the FAA takes a hard stand on an issue the EASA may as well to avoid appearance of being too lax and close to Airbus like the FAA was (with Boeing).

Isnt there a common treaty signed by both US and EU that states airplanes certified by the country of origin's aviation authority need to be accepted with reasonable scrutiny by the other parties' aviation authorities? The max recertification obviously was an exceptional situation that asked for detailed scrutiny and a separate recertification process by the other aviation authorities - in light of the serious flaws that unearthed in the original certification; but it doesnt mean this treaty has landed in the trashbin.

I fail to see how the Max certification disaster grants FAA any reason to scrutinise Airbus beyond the current standing legal procedures. Either in a tit-for-tat or because FAA is convinced EASA is cutting corners. Then again, people caught stealing tend to believe other people display that same behaviour - they just don't get caught. You'd hope aviation authorities' processes are built on stronger principles than those that govern our most elementary human behaviours and instincts.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO the trouble with the FAA is a FAA Boeing certification trouble, not a problem throughout the industry. There was never the cozy relationship between EASA and Airbus, as in between Boeing and the FAA that let Boeing walk heavy shooed over the FAA and regulations.

It can become a problem since Airbus needs FAA certification when selling to US airlines (one of their largest markets), not an EASA certification. Airbus would definitely like as much clarity and insight into FAA’s current certification ideas as possible before they get stuck in a situation where their FAA certification gets delayed because they didn’t provide the desired information. There is also fear in the industry too that if the FAA takes a hard stand on an issue the EASA may as well to avoid appearance of being too lax and close to Airbus like the FAA was (with Boeing).

My point is that Boeing has trouble with certification. That is not a FAA against EASA situation. That is a Boeing versus certification issue, with the FAA getting hit by the flying dirt, because of their former insuffizient control of the certification process. On the way the FAA has lost it's standing as the world's premier aircraft certification authority.
No such trouble has raised it's head in regards to EASA and Airbus.

mjoelnir wrote:

No such trouble has raised it's head in regards to EASA and Airbus.

Airbus hasn't certified anything since the 737MAX disaster.

People ask why the A321XLR is taking years for a simple extra fuel tank.

Both Airbus and Boeing are guilty of self certifying for decades. The FAA and EASA both lack the resources to check everything. The next Airbus product will also have a slow certification process as the regulators will never get up to to the speed of the Airbus and Boeing self regulation.

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

No such trouble has raised it's head in regards to EASA and Airbus.

Airbus hasn't certified anything since the 737MAX disaster.

People ask why the A321XLR is taking years for a simple extra fuel tank.

Both Airbus and Boeing are guilty of self certifying for decades. The FAA and EASA both lack the resources to check everything. The next Airbus product will also have a slow certification process as the regulators will never get up to to the speed of the Airbus and Boeing self regulation.

"Self-Certifying" isn't a thing to be "guilty" of. It's just a fact. The regulatory authority doesn't design the plane, the OEM does. The first port of call for doing the necessary SIL assessments is by definition the OEM.

The product I work on has a particularly onerous safety challenge. But our Engineers do the Safety Integrity Level Assessments, and present them to the Chief Engineer (a Technical Authority role, not a Programme delivery role). The findings are then presented to our Engineering Product Assurance Team, an independent team whose role is to oversee the design process. They report to a senior Board director with no delivery responsibilities. We then have a separate regulatory governance department whose role is to ensure that the process set up by EPAD guarantees compliance with all regulatory requirements. Then we have the various external regulatory groups who audit all of that and ensure that we are compliant.

It is neither practical nor possible to have ALL the certifying activities done by the regulators. They would end up designing the plane.
What matters is that the processes are demonstrated to be appropriately rigorous, and that they are being appropriately rigorously followed. That is the role of the regulator.

That Boeing self certified on the MAX wasn't the problem. The problem was that they forced Programme pressure to overcome regulatory rigour, and that the FAA went along with it through inadequate oversight.

Rgds

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Polot wrote:

The primary purpose is to increase wing size and area while keeping it about the same weight as the current wing.

And this for similar production costs. It is a necessity for any successor to the A320NEO, but I am not convinced we will see the wing on an A320 any time soon.

It makes me wonder at which point the newly emboldened regulators decide to blow the whistle. A rear center tank with stronger gear, MTOW increase and new flaps design is a lot to take on at one time, but it seems to be manageable, just. What happens when you put a new wing on that base yet continue on producing the A320 as-is? Seems like it might be the time for a two year deep dive to make sure nothing is being missed, akin to what is now happening with 777x largely at EASA's insistence.

It will be very close to a new certification, not only because regulators demand that, but also because Airbus will want to upgrade the hardware of the flight control system. New processors, maybe the A220 side sticks and so on. That is something for a large upgrade or a completely new design, which should future proof the design for another 20 years.

astuteman wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

No such trouble has raised it's head in regards to EASA and Airbus.

Airbus hasn't certified anything since the 737MAX disaster.

People ask why the A321XLR is taking years for a simple extra fuel tank.

Both Airbus and Boeing are guilty of self certifying for decades. The FAA and EASA both lack the resources to check everything. The next Airbus product will also have a slow certification process as the regulators will never get up to to the speed of the Airbus and Boeing self regulation.

"Self-Certifying" isn't a thing to be "guilty" of. It's just a fact. The regulatory authority doesn't design the plane, the OEM does. The first port of call for doing the necessary SIL assessments is by definition the OEM.

The product I work on has a particularly onerous safety challenge. But our Engineers do the Safety Integrity Level Assessments, and present them to the Chief Engineer (a Technical Authority role, not a Programme delivery role). The findings are then presented to our Engineering Product Assurance Team, an independent team whose role is to oversee the design process. They report to a senior Board director with no delivery responsibilities. We then have a separate regulatory governance department whose role is to ensure that the process set up by EPAD guarantees compliance with all regulatory requirements. Then we have the various external regulatory groups who audit all of that and ensure that we are compliant.

It is neither practical nor possible to have ALL the certifying activities done by the regulators. They would end up designing the plane.
What matters is that the processes are demonstrated to be appropriately rigorous, and that they are being appropriately rigorously followed. That is the role of the regulator.

That Boeing self certified on the MAX wasn't the problem. The problem was that they forced Programme pressure to overcome regulatory rigour, and that the FAA went along with it through inadequate oversight.

Rgds

Of course there is self-certification to some point on all sides, but the difference is in accountability. Boeing lobbied congress succesfully to have inspectors' accountability moved from the FAA to Boeing. I forgot how the change in the system was called but in combination with the automated and sample based QC, laying off tousands of people in the process, that became quite a deadly cocktail.

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

No such trouble has raised it's head in regards to EASA and Airbus.

Airbus hasn't certified anything since the 737MAX disaster.

People ask why the A321XLR is taking years for a simple extra fuel tank.

Both Airbus and Boeing are guilty of self certifying for decades. The FAA and EASA both lack the resources to check everything. The next Airbus product will also have a slow certification process as the regulators will never get up to to the speed of the Airbus and Boeing self regulation.

A330=800 was certified 02/13/2020. The A330-900 251 t MTOW version was certified 19/8/2020.

There is no equivalence between the Boeing FAA troubled certification mess and other certification authorities.

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO the trouble with the FAA is a FAA Boeing certification trouble, not a problem throughout the industry. There was never the cozy relationship between EASA and Airbus, as in between Boeing and the FAA that let Boeing walk heavy shooed over the FAA and regulations.

Interesting. One prominent EU-based poster here made this into a grandfathering problem time and time again, but now that big blocks of new functionality are being added to the A320 line that line of reasoning has gone quiet. As above, I think one outcome of the current deep dives will be clearer guidance on how new variants are being added to type certificates that will be applied by both FAA and EASA.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO the trouble with the FAA is a FAA Boeing certification trouble, not a problem throughout the industry. There was never the cozy relationship between EASA and Airbus, as in between Boeing and the FAA that let Boeing walk heavy shooed over the FAA and regulations.

Interesting. One prominent EU-based poster here made this into a grandfathering problem time and time again, but now that big blocks of new functionality are being added to the A320 line that line of reasoning has gone quiet. As above, I think one outcome of the current deep dives will be clearer guidance on how new variants are being added to type certificates that will be applied by both FAA and EASA.

Is his silence because the A32x has not needed to be availed of grandfathering rights? We know that the 737 does not comply with modern regulations in some respects but is allowed to continue anyway, but is the same also true of the A32x? If so, what areas are non-compliant? (I genuinely don't know, I'm not just stirring the pot!)

Grandfathering of design and requirements was a kind of banned 20 years ago and then reinvented 10 years ago when the A320NEO needed to be stopped and 777 to be protected after the Dreamliner moonshot.

Using the changed product rule over longer periods of time, e.g. 30-50 years, cascading exemptions, special rules and major changes as small ones, based on doctored safety track records (blame pilots, arm wrenching authorities) will lead to the situation Boeing / FAA are in today.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ew-alerts/

Not fully certifying the 737MAX as a new aircraft makes sense, it's a re-engining. Certifying the 777x as a 777 derivative was IMO a bridge to far. New wings, engines, landing gears, fuselage, cockpit, tail, systems= a new aircraft. FAA allowing certifying as an enormous pile of interacting modifications was highly surprising from the start, to people knowing anything about aircraft certification. That's why the 777-9 is delayed for years. You can't deny, divert that away.

2014:

The U.S. regulator has shown "a surprising amount of flexibility" allowing significantly updated aircraft with new engines and wings to be grandfathered, said Hans Weber, president of Tecop International Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in aircraft certification.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 3968514184

We now know Boeing had congress and FAA in the pocket using congress to push through "streamlining" and delegated certification via FAA budget re-authorizations.

If Airbus would develop an A310 sized wingbox, wing, engine, tail, new cockpit on the A330, that would be a major change, probably a new type certificate. No fooling around arguing it is a A330 variant really. EASA is build out of many offices, countries each having their own traditions and ideas. No centralized budgets. Putting pressure on them to allow exemptions, "streamline" processes is much harder.