.. keesje wrote: … While I agree with most, the program needs to reach economies of scale, Airbus must also be responsive to market requirements. The A319NEO and A220-100, from a commercial standpoint, seem to have lost out, even before they really took off. That shrinks the Airbus NB portfolio from below.
In my opinion the A320 has already become the smallest A320 family offering (that sells). The gab between the A320 and A321 (40+ seats) could be taken care of to assure dominance in the >170 seat NB segment for years to come (e.g. a A320Plus).
Source: Boeing,
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405623
.. ..I have noticed this
The Boeing Company’s graphic presentation several times in the recent years and I believe that, even at the time it was created, while the
Bombardier CSeries CS100 (BD-500-1A10) and
CSeries CS300 (BD-500-1A10) aircraft have not been rebranded yet as
Airbus A220-100 and
Airbus A220-300 (July 2018), it was not made quite correctly… You know how they say:
"Every gypsy praises his horse.".. ..The fact
Boeing 737 MAX 10 was faced directly, nose to nose, with
Airbus A321neo seems somehow unacceptable to me (generally observed and from the most of the aspects) in this Boeing's graph, so I’ve decided to try to be a little more detailed and precise, the same with these two aircraft as well as with the other narrow-bodies produced by these two factories and shown in my graph …
.. ..Unlike some other technical data, such as the length of the aircraft, the wingspan … expressed in the fixed values, the number of the seats can really be a relative and variable value, so I decided to deal in my graph with the maximum number of the seats (cabin configurations that in a very close and quite comparable way contribute to the feeling of anxiety, despair, misery, captivity and helplessness in the passengers) for the shown aircraft. After reviewing the official factory documentation, different, I suppose relevant, websites and the certificates, I concluded that these are the same numbers that are clearly and well visible on the wikipedia
… In addition, I entered in my graph below the aircraft's lengths, just as the orientation values, and it is worth noting that in the case of the
Airbus A320neo family aircraft those values represent the length of their fuselages, and in the case of the
Boeing 737 MAX aircraft family it is the length from the nose to the tip of the horizontal stabilizers, greater than the length of the fuselage itself…
.. ……
....Comparing the fuselages' lengths as the relevant values of those two aircraft:
Airbus A321neo - 44,51 m / 146 ft and
Boeing 737 MAX 10 - 43,43 m / 142 ft 6 in, it is expected that a difference in the fuselages' lengths will also result with the different lengths of their cabins and possible the number of the rows of the seats and eventually the maximum number of the seats.
.. ..Considering that
737 MAX 10 aircraft; MTOW: 89.765 kg / 197.900 lb, has not been certified yet, and there is nothing available in the official technical documentation that would indicate the existence of a more powerful engine than those existing and already certified ones, I believe that the prototype aircraft, MSN
66122 / LN
7644, reg.
N27751 and MSN
66123 / LN
7705, reg.
N27752, are powered by two
LEAP-1B28, 2-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.763,0 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; eng. architecture: 1F+3LPC–10HPC
〧2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, each rated at 130,41 kN / 13.298 kgf / 29.317 lbf.
The Boeing Company once expressed its unwillingness to accept the thrust bumped
CFMI LEAP-1B engines for their largest
737 MAX version. Whether the mentioned engines’ thrust will be sufficient, whether
The Boeing Company has changed its mind in the meantime or whether the engines' manufacturer will succeed to pull out some more thrust from this engine, we’ll see. Some sources state
737 MAX 10 will be powered by two
CFMI LEAP-1B30, thrust-bumped engines, rated at 137,89 kN / 14.061 kgf / 31.000 lbf. And, whether the testing of a more powerful version of the
LEAP-1B engine is carried out alongside with test flights of the two prototypes of the
Boeing 737 MAX 10 aircraft, I wouldn't know. Meanwhile, both flying prototypes are diligently collecting test flights’ hours. Anyhow, I look forward to completing the testing and delivering the aircraft to the airlines as soon as possible, but it will take an unusually long two years or more for flight tests before the
737 MAX 10 can actually take to the skies with up to
230 passengers. Namely,
Boeing needs time to develop and certify the additional safety enhancements to the
MAXs, demanded in particular by the European aviation regulator, after the two fatal crashes of the smaller
MAX 8 model in 2018. (Lion Air Flight
JT610) and 2019. (Ethiopian Airlines Flight
ET302).
....Airbus SE has a longer-range version of the
A321neo in the service already -
A321N/LR. With 210 passengers, that plane can fly some 500 nm / 920 km farther than
737 MAX 10. With that range,
A321N/LR can comfortably fly TATL routes. New York (
JFK) -based low-cost air carrier,
JetBlue Airways (
B6/JBU), conducted its first test flight on 13. July 2021. to
LHR with their brand new
A321-271NX/LR aircraft; MTOW: 97.000 kg / 213.848 lb, MSN
10303, reg.
N4022J, cabin configuration:
C24 Y114, powered by two
PW1133G-JM, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass,
GTF engines (fan diameter: 81,0 in / 2.057,4 mm; BPR: 12,5:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; eng. architecture:
1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 147,28 kN / 15.018 kgf / 33.110 lbf, before entering the transatlantic market in August 2021. Additionally,
jetBlue is the first launch partner for the new
Airspace cabin configuration designed by
Airbus to bring the long-haul style to
Airbus A321 aircraft. With the Airspace cabin configuration,
Airbus A321-271NX/LR aircraft has a layout of only 138 seats: 114 in economy class and 24 in jetBlue’s
Mint Suites.
.. …… A2321neo vs. 737 MAX 10 - in the numbers……
.. ..For
Boeing 737 MAX 10 TATL service seems to be too far in this moment (it is to be expected that
Boeing will work on developing the longer-range version of the aircraft). Besides, by the time
MAX 10 enters the service in 2023,
Airbus plans to have another, even longer range, model in the service -
Airbus A321N/XLR; MTOW: 101.000 kg / 223.000 lb. It will be interesting to see if will
Pratt & Whitney and
CFM International offer higher thrust engines for this version of
A321neo, like
PW1135G-JM or
LEAP-1A35, rated at some 155,69 kN / 15.876 kgf / 35.000 lbf.
....The range deficiency is not
MAX 10's only problem. Although
The Boeing Company extended
MAX 10's
landing gear, pilots still cannot rotate the nose up too sharply on takeoff or the jet will scrape its tail on the runway. For
MAX 10 to take off from the short runways of the airports, especially at high OAT (outside/ambient air temperatures) and/or HEA (high elevation airports), which reduces (already insufficient) engines’ power, an airline may have to lower the jet’s weight by blocking out some seats to carry fewer passengers …
.. ..For which airlines this aircraft represents a satisfactory and perfectly acceptable choice? For those who don’t need the extra range, superb field performance and for the airlines which already fly
MAX 737s. Somehow it seems
MAX 10 represents what
MAX 9 should have been from the very beginning. On the other side, the orders for
Boeing 737 MAX 7 show that the time has overtaken those shortened, overweight and robust versions of those basic and larger narrow-bodies from which they arose, like
Airbus A319neo and
Boeing 737 MAX 7. The latter has significantly more orders (mostly
WN) because the airlines more inclined to
The Boeing Company have one choice -
737 MAX 7, while those who prefer to purchase the aircraft from
Airbus SE now have a choice between
A220-300 and
A319neo.
....** Just a little comparison of
A321neo with the aircraft which was always just as interesting and fascinating to me, and that is
757-200(WL) (MTOW: 255.000 lb / 115.660 kg), powered by either two
RB211-535, 3-shaft, high-bypass turbofans or
PW2000, 2-shaft, high-bypass turbofans, certified for a maximum capacity of 239 seats in a single-class cabin (Y220@30-in pitch, Y228@28-in pitch) and with the maximum range of 3.915 nm / 7.250 km (4.100 nm / 7.795 km with the winglets).
....The most powerful engines certified for
Boeing 757 (model
-300), narrow-body airliner were
535E4-C-37, 3-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.882,1 mm / 74,1 in; BPR: 4,4:1; eng. architecture: 1F–6IPC=6HPC
〨1HPT=1IPT–3LPT), OPR: 25,0:1, rated at 192,40 kN / 19.619 kgf / 43.253 lbf and
PW2043, 2-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 78,5 in / 1.993,9 mm; BPR: 6,0:1; eng. architecture: 1F+4LPC–12HPC
〧2HPT–5LPT, OPR: 29,5:1, rated at 191,27 kN / 19.504 kgf / 43.000 lbf.
.. ..While the
Airbus A321neo has much more fuel efficient engines compared to those of
Boeing 757, there is also a big difference in a wing area between the two, in a favour of
Boeing 757 with 185,25 sg m / 1.994 sq ft vs.
Airbus A321neo’s 122,6 sq m / 1.320 sq ft. Although the
Airbus A321neo airrcaft is wider, has a larger body, a wider cabin with better seat width and better storage, allows containerized freight, uses fly-by-wire system, more modern aerodynamics, it has a better specific fuel consumption … there won’t be another
Boeing 757. There was only one such. Unique and unrepeatable …**
.. ..A few databases related to the
A220,
A320neo,
737 MAX and
E-Jet E2 families of the narrow-body aircraft.
... A220.
... A320neo (please click for a larger view).
... 737 MAX.
... E-Jet E2.
....For the end, a few words about the possibility of the developing and manufacturing of the
A220-500 aircraft. In this moment
Airbus SE can make far more money and profit on a mature and high rate production process of
A320neo than on the one of
A220-500 which has yet to be established (in this moment it seems the factory loses money on each
A220-300 they produce). The factory would be mostly competing with themselves given that there is no justifiable reason to think that this aircraft would be more competitive or interesting to the airlines in the comparison with
737 MAX 8 than the existing
A320neo is. And I doubt if anyone would suddenly start to turn to
Boeing 737 MAX if
Airbus doesn’t stretch their
A220.
....Many airlines have recently made a shift from 100-150 typical seating
A318/
A319s to 150-180 typical seating
A320s and/or 180-220 typical seating
A321s. For those who needs the aircraft in the 100-150 typical seating range,
Airbus A220-100/
300 aircraft are quite an acceptable and satisfactory solution. There are certainly those companies (DL) for which the
A220-500 would already be an ideal aircraft at the moment, but the main question is whether it’s an ideal choice for the factory to produce it at the moment. That doesn’t seem to be the case …
....I am of the opinion the
Airbus should only build a stretched
A220-500 if only they can be sure this model and the
A320neo will not accidentally threaten each other, as it has become the case with
A319neo (no longer particularly interesting anyway) and
A220-300. Maybe, one day,
A220-500 could become a competitor to
Boeing’s possible successor to the
737 -
NSA. An uprated engine would be also required for the streched
A220-500 and the question is how much more extra thrust
Pratt & Whitney could pull out of its
PW1500G engine. With an expected increase in MTOW of 5.000 kg / 11.020 lb, the induced drag of the
Airbus A220-500 aircraft will not increase significantly during the cruise. The engine, therefore, may remain the same from a cruising thrust point of view, but the question is how will increasing the size and mass of the aircraft affect take-off and landing performance. Assuming that the balanced runway length remains close to that of the
Airbus A220-300, we can only assume that the most powerful version of the
Pratt & Whitney PW1500G, '2,5'-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engine -
PW1525G, with the same static thrust at the sea level as
PW1524G rated at 108,54 kN / 11.068 kgf / 24.400 lbf, but 5 % increased through the
thrust bump to 113,96 kN / 11.621 kgf / 25.620 lbf in non-static conditions and the speeds over Mach 0,1 / 66,7 kts / 123 km/h at sea level airfields, will be sufficient for the stretched version of the aircraft. Hopefully
Pratt & Whitney, if
Airbus A220-500 sees the light of the day, will be ready to fulfill its task, whether it will be with a 'bumped' engine or an engine of increased core power obtained by hot (increasing the inlet temperature to HPT by changing the overall engine pressure ratio - OPR) or by cold way (increasing the mass flow of the engine’s core).
....On the first
IAE’s models of the
V2500, 2-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines, which were somewhat 'short' with the thrust, especially at high OAT (outside/ambient air temperatures) and/or HEA (high elevation airports),
IAE AG devised a method to increase engines' thrust by injecting more fuel into the engine at the startup take-off procedures. The procedure was called '
Thrust Bump' and was started by pressing any of the two protected switches on the back of the engines’ power control levers.
....It is assumed that the
A220-500 would get 6 additional sections of the fuselage (per 3 in front and behind the wing, keeping the center of the gravity in its current position) to accommodate an additional 4 rows of the seats (3+2 seats per row; 32,0 in / 81,3 cm pitch) i.e. additional 20 seats. This would increase the length of the aircraft by 3,2 m / 10,5 ft. In this way, the aircraft would come close to a length of 42,0 m / 137 ft 9,5 in and there would be a risk of the tail hitting the ground during the take-off maneuver. With
Airbus A321 aircraft there is the same risk of catching the runway surface during take-off as it would possible be with the
A220-500, so
Airbus SE, in order to support the characteristics of
A321, included in the construction of the wing double flaps and minor modifications at the exit edges of the wing (recently redesigned). The result was that maximum wing lift could be achieved at a lower angle of attack. This increased the distance from the tail to the runway during takeoff and landing. If it appears,
Airbus A220-500 could possible get the same technical solution applied to its wings one day. Wider, 6-abreast Y-class cabin (cabin width: 370 cm / 12 ft 1 in)
A320neo would be probably looking more proportional standing next to the possible 5-abreast Y-class cabin (cabin width: 328 cm / 10 ft 9 in)
A220-500 and besides has the possibility of carrying the LD3-45 containers. I am not sure how important the mentioned facts would be for the airlines when choosing one of these two aircraft. Perhaps one day
Airbus SE decides to start slowly replacing
A320neo with the
A220-500 as they have
A319neo with
A220-300, and further develop the
A320neo aircraft family around the models
A321neo and
A322neo. Maybe their range of the narrow-body aircraft might look like below lined up (somehow I don't think
A220-100 will stop being interesting to just about everyone when it comes time to replace their dilapidated aircraft of this size or to those who might realize that in the meantime their existing aircraft became just too big and unprofitable for them (
OU /
CTN):
.. …..●
A220-100…….●
A220-300……...●
A220-500………..●
A320.5neo………....●
A321neo…………...●
A322neo.. ..Looking at the first attached graph, the gap between
A320neo and
A321neo is visible. Is there a room for some version of the aircraft in between, such as the mentioned
A320.5neo? I'm not sure. You choose one of the two offered;
A320neo and/or
A321neo, and that is enough. The
A320.5neo would only subtract potential orders from the already existing and larger
A321neo, probably not becoming the first choice for those who would decide in a favour of
737 MAX 8 anyway. Yes,
A320.5 might be a more direct competitor against the
737 MAX 8 and threaten
Boeing more, but the market is big enough for everyone and what would be a justifiable reason of the obsession by desire to have a more competitive or better aircraft in just about every segment? For some,
A320neo is and will remain a better choice, and for the others it is the
737 MAX 8. Can you imagine
The Boeing Company or
Airbus SE being capable of covering all the market needs, in all the segments, with their production? I can’t. Maybe a bit oversimplified, but in principle that is the essence of the whole story. Aircraft factories are run by the managers who try to get the most out of their business with the minimal investment (when they have no measure in it anymore, they become what The Boeing Company is today). Developing and establishing the production of a new model or version of an aircraft, and that we would like to see so much or think it would perfectly fit into a market segment, most often or even as a rule, is not a justified and profitable investment. I am somehow free to believe those responsible at the
Airbus SE will make the right moves at the right time, taking into account many more factors and the circumstances than we do here, deciding how to compete well in the market (I have forgiven them the mistake made with the
A380). The thicker and more comprehensive sales catalogs that would impress potential customers or more complete and colorful graphics that look so impressive are pretty easy things to make. In the comparison with the real aircraft …
.. ..I’m not trying to be wise and smart and I really have nothing to say in my defense because my drawer, on top of which is the aircraft that became a ‘big wound in my heart’, is almost full of those 'brilliant' projects. When I first saw how the
CFMI LEAP-1B, high-bypass, turbofan engines should be mounted higher and further forward on the new
737 MAX's wings, my idea of powering the
fourth generation of
Boeing 737 aircraft was including
GTF engines; four
Pratt & Whitney PW1600G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 56,0 in / 1.422,4 mm; BPR: 9,0:1, gear ratio: 2,409:1; eng. architecture:
1F-]G[-2LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated between 59,14 kN / 6.031 kgf / 13.295 lbf and 78,49 kN / 8.004 kgf / 17.645 lbf, imagined as a custom designed and specially tailored version of the small-core
Pratt & Whitney PW1000G GTF engine (previously known as the
PurePower Geared Turbofan™), already applied on the
Mitsubishi SpaceJet (
MRJ) powered by
P&W PW1200G GTF engines and also predicted for the
Embraer E175-E2 (
ERJ190-500) -
PW1700G.
.......
..…I was thinking those four engines would not bring a significant weight penalty (
PW1600G: 1.724 kg / 3.800 lb;
LEAP-1B: 2.780 kg / 6.128 lb) to the aircraft, and in the same time these are more propulsive efficient engines (lower SFC) in the comparison with
CFMI LEAP-1B, 2-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.762,8 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; eng. architecture: 1F+3LPC–10HPC
〧2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, rated between 119,15 kN / 12.150 kgf / 26.786 lbf and 130,41 kN / 13.298 kgf / 29.317 lbf. Besides, due to the noticeably smaller (23,9 %) fan diameter (
PW1600G: 56,0 in / 1.422,4 mm;
LEAP-1B: 69,4 in / 1.762,8 mm) those engines could be easier placed on a more appropriate place under the
737 MAX’s wings, not creating an unforeseen tendencies to move the aircraft along the longitudinal axis. The wings should probably need some modifications to deal with somewhat higher, but differently distributed weight of the smaller and lighter
GTFs ...
....
...
....Above: flydubai's
737-8 aircraft; MSN
60966 / LN 6326, reg.
A6-MAX, powered by two
LEAP-1B28, 2-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.762,8 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; eng. architecture:
1F+3LPC–10HPC〧2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, rated at 130,41 kN / 13.298 kgf / 29.317 lbf, 'redesigned' to the model
, powered by four
PW1615G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 56,0 in / 1.422,4 mm; BPR: 9,0:1, gear ratio: 2,409:1; eng. architecture:
1F-]G[-2LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 68,81 kN / 7.017 kgf / 15.470 lbf ...
....Except the installation of the
GTF engine on the
Boeing 737 aircraft would mean, by my opinion, a large technological stride, in the same time it would represent a historical reunion of the
Boeing 737 aircraft and
Pratt & Whitney’s engines, since the first generation of this aircraft -
Boeing 737 Original (
737-100/
200) was powered by
JT8D series of 2-shaft, low-bypass, turbofan engines.
..…..
…..Boeing 737’s engines through the generations....It would be so special to see how it all started so it can come to the end -
Boeing 737 and
Pratt & Whitney. Had such an aircraft really been designed and manufactured, it would have been probably causing taunt, mockery and astonishment in the world of the aviation. Yes … but I can't help myself and erase from my memory all these images I saw after 346 people lost their lives in those two tragedies. Or thinking on those thousands forever left inconsolable, mourning their dead… And, would such an aircraft be of the interest to the airlines and bring the money to the factory? I don’t know. Does it matter? And who really cares? The
Boeing 737 FOUR only exists in my head anyway ...
..Mario
