strfyr51 wrote:DLHAM wrote:I think as well that Airbus should launch the A220-500 sooner than later. This is the airplane that Airbus and Boeing were afraid of when Bombardier worked on the CSeries (CS500)! There is a reason, it would beat the A320neo and MAX8 handsdown in terms of efficiency on routes shorter than 3.5 - 4 hours. For Airbus this is no big deal as their bestseller is the A321 which is uneffected from an A225 and also they own the CSeries Programme anyway, but for Boeing this means real trouble as the MAX8 is their bestseller, which would be in direct competition to the A225 and only sell for its range, price or commonality then.
Not building the A225 would be the same mistake that Boeing made not building the 717-300 in the late 90s/early 2000s. And the best is that the A225 is no big deal, simple stretch by a few meters.
It begs me to question. If an airline is alrady flying the A320/319/321 series? then all they're doing is muddying the waters withe the A220. the Avionics are not interchangeable, not the wheels or Brakes nor windows. From a cost perspective? An airline that flies the A220? Would still have to move up to the A320 series or the Noeing 737 series if they are to grow. The A220 appears to be a good airplane. But? to what end? Can you build on to form a great airline? Or? A super Great Regional?
The marketing strategy is "Eat the young." The A320NEO has an engine built for 35k of thrust on an airframe that only needs 27k of thrust.
An A225 vs. the A320 will be lighter, have better electronic systems (lower cruise thrust), and much more optimized engines (lower fuel burn).
The A319NEO weights 42.6 tons vs. A223 at 37.08 tons or a 5.5 metric ton weight savings. Plus less nacelle drag with the A220 and the A319NEO engines will be at such low thrust, the pressure ratio (in operation, not peak engine design) will be low.
The A319NEO weights 44.3 tons (it benefits as the A319 is a simple shrink and thus doomed to be heavy for the weight). One would assume the A225 would lose 2 to 2.5 tons of the weight advantage being stretched. So a 3 ton weight advantage on say a MTOW of 75 tons.
So just on weight, a 4% to 6% reduction in fuel burn. Now, the A320 has fractionally more wing area than the A220, so one would expect very similar wing loading (same density air).
The electrical subsystems should save an additional 2% to 3% in fuel burn.
The nacelle drag (which includes high speed air *inside* the engine) is another 1% to 1.5% reduction in fuel burn.
So my best estimate is a 7% to 10.5% reduction in fuel burn for the A225 over the A320NEO. Basically a half generation better, per my estimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A2 ... ificationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_familyIt then becomes a question of range. A regional airliner is < 1800nm in range.
Going from memory (I know, dangerous)
US midWest hubs to coasts/Florida need 2200nm range
US TCON is 2950 nm range (which JetBlue proved was indeed the minimum with all their diversions)
US West coast to Hawaii is 3100nm range
While I use US ranges, it should there are step functions for needed range. An A225 will easily have over 2500nm range, and might just be able to have that 2950nm range with an engine PiP (CMC turbine blades?) Recall it wasn't too long ago (pre-Sharklets and engine PiPs) that the A320CEO struggled on US TCON missions. (I'm well aware with sharklets and the engine PiPs from both engine vendors that they A320CEO has no issue on US TCON).
So all the A225 would miss out on is very long thin routes. That's the job for the A223 anyway. Once you have US TCON ranges, you encompass the vast majority of EU, intra-India, and other potential A320 missions. Let's look at the current A220 operators who might buy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A2 ... ifications1. Delta
2. Air Baltic
3. Swiss/Lufthansa (relatively short missions looking at the A320s they retired)
4. AirCanada (they might need more range on the A225)
5. Egypt Air
6. JetBlue (A potential bonanza of orders as they need something more efficient than the A320NEO)
7. Korean Air (Never bad to displace the competitors's MAXs)
8 . Air France (iffy, loyal to CFM/SAFRAN)
9. Breeze (growth!)
10. Air Tanzania (simplify fleet)
11. Air Austral
12. Eurowings (allowed by scope, I don't know?)
13. Ibom (keep fleet simple)
14. Iraqi Airways
15. Air Manas
16. Air Senegal
Plus those that ordered the A220 who haven't started flying (Air Vanuatu, ITA, I exclude Qantas and Odyssey on my own opinions).
I see an opportunity for Airbus. In particular with the A380 production facility being converted to A321 production. The point is to stifle the competition and return on investment. I see a great sales opportunity for the A225. Which will sell more A223... This is a cheap way to really hurt the business case for a NSA (New single isle) from Boeing. It also destroys the -7 MAX business case.
I personally believe an A225 would have won an Allegiant order for the A220.
Lightsaber
