I am not so sure that the A321XLR is the end of the line for Airbus. The wing might be maxed out but with a new wing it might be good for another stretch or two. Given the A320's family history of constant modular modifications this route seems likely. This way Airbus can wait for whatever Boeing has to come out with first.

LAX772LR wrote:

astuteman wrote:

On the wright front, the OEW of the XLR is said to be about the same as a stock A321NEO with 1 x ACT.
Hence the chances are an A321LR used for range is likely to have a higher OEW as it will be carrying 2 or 3 ACT's.
Each ACT weighs about 500kg (1/2 tonne) empty

True, and that'll definitely be a difference in available payload...

...but also keep in mind that overflight/landing/etc are priced on MTOW, so there's that

Agree completely. Also apologies for the typo in my previous post - weight, not wright ....

Rgds

I think the XLR will be the last iteration of the A32X in the way of getting it under the same family umbrella.

Airbus can still rewing it and upgrade the systems, etc. adding a new engine and certify it from ground up but using the current production systems for the next iteration. If you plan this from the get go it is still very economical.

Grandfathering might be dead (at least to the extend it was practiced before) but you can still develop an aircraft around the benefits of the "old" model and upgrade the parts that do not meet the new regulations as long as you take this into account there is nothing holding you back. It is more expensive than before but you can still recycle the stuff that is good to go.

JohanTally wrote:

Has the cold cabin floor condition been resolved? I wonder if switching from composite to aluminum fairings might increase the transfer of extreme cold to the tank and eventually to the floor above.

Thermal insulation can be installed inside the fairing if it's of any use.

Typically authorities don't advice on materials, solutions but focus on complying with regulations. I think they'll be strict on the XLR having the same or better belly land, fire & passenger evacuation specifications as previous A321's.


https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 43.article

With door 2 deleted and the ACT being pretty close to door 3 on XLR, EASA might have taken a extra close look on fire containment and evacuation requirements in worst case emergency situations, rightfully so. But Airbus also, so I think we can expect more on this soon. E.g. maybe the second overwing exit option could help. Or door 2 back

keesje wrote:

Typically authorities don't advice on materials, solutions but focus on complying with regulations. I think they'll be strict on the XLR having the same or better belly land, fire & passenger evacuation specifications as previous A321's.


https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 43.article

With door 2 deleted and the ACT being pretty close to door 3 on XLR, EASA might have taken a extra close look on fire containment and evacuation requirements in worst case emergency situations, rightfully so. But Airbus also, so I think we can expect more on this soon. E.g. maybe the second overwing exit option could help. Or door 2 back

It has nothing to do with exits and their locations. You want the fuel protected/ risk of fire minimized in event of belly landing because there are passenger sitting right above it. Traditional center tanks derive most of their protection from wingbox structure.

keesje wrote:

Typically authorities don't advice on materials, solutions but focus on complying with regulations. I think they'll be strict on the XLR having the same or better belly land, fire & passenger evacuation specifications as previous A321's.


https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 43.article

With door 2 deleted and the ACT being pretty close to door 3 on XLR, EASA might have taken a extra close look on fire containment and evacuation requirements in worst case emergency situations, rightfully so. But Airbus also, so I think we can expect more on this soon. E.g. maybe the second overwing exit option could help. Or door 2 back

What do the doors have anything to do with the issues reported? It would solve nothing and would add a lot of complexity to the production of the A321, they just standardized the new NX layout.

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Typically authorities don't advice on materials, solutions but focus on complying with regulations. I think they'll be strict on the XLR having the same or better belly land, fire & passenger evacuation specifications as previous A321's.


https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 43.article

With door 2 deleted and the ACT being pretty close to door 3 on XLR, EASA might have taken a extra close look on fire containment and evacuation requirements in worst case emergency situations, rightfully so. But Airbus also, so I think we can expect more on this soon. E.g. maybe the second overwing exit option could help. Or door 2 back

It has nothing to do with exits and their locations. You want the fuel protected/ risk of fire minimized in event of belly landing because there are passenger sitting right above it. Traditional center tanks derive most of their protection from wingbox structure.

How was this solved on the 345 ULR?

Can someone talk about the FAA approval process for this modification? Does the FAA directly follow the guidance/certification of the EASA, or does the FAA have their own review process?

Does the XLR range of 4700nm already have some weight margin worked in for any potential modifications? I do wonder as Airbus has been aware of this being a concern for quite sometime and must have known it may have a weight penalty.

FluidFlow wrote:

How was this solved on the 345 ULR?

I'm guessing you mean the A350-900ULR?

If so, there was nothing *to* solve, because the aircraft does not use supplementary fuel tanks. It uses a combination of adjusted software, and a bit of hardware (fuel pumps, etc) to allow more use of the A350's already-existent MASSIVE fuel tank, which would've otherwise remained empty even at max fuel on a standard A350. As a balance penalty, it cannot use its forward cargo bay, which must remained sealed so long as the aircraft is operating in -ULR configuration.

If you mean the A340-500, then that had a traditional ACT in the rear, so didn't have these worries either.

LAX772LR wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

How was this solved on the 345 ULR?

I'm guessing you mean the A350-900ULR?

If so, there was nothing *to* solve, because the aircraft does not use supplementary fuel tanks. It uses a combination of adjusted software, and a bit of hardware (fuel pumps, etc) to allow more use of the A350's already-existent MASSIVE fuel tank, which would've otherwise remained empty even at max fuel on a standard A350.

If you mean the A340-500, then that had a traditional ACT in the rear, so didn't have these worries either.

I thought the A345 had an integral RCT:

Although the -500 shares much commonality with the larger A340-600, it is unique in having a 19,930 litre (5,260USgal) rear centre tank (RCT). According to Airbus, this is a permanently installed fuel tank located in the lower fuselage outside the pressurised area, aft of the centre landing gear bay.

As originally designed, the integral fuel tank used the fuselage skin as its outer wall, but Flight International has learned the FAA was concerned about the crashworthiness of this configuration. Airbus says a Kevlar liner is being developed for the tank to meet the requirements of the FAA's conditional certification issued in January, although the European Joint Aviation Authorities did not require it when it approved the new variant in December 2002.

https://www.flightglobal.com/faa-forces-a340-tank-upgrade-/50148.article

ElroyJetson wrote:

Can someone talk about the FAA approval process for this modification? Does the FAA directly follow the guidance/certification of the EASA, or does the FAA have their own review process?

The FAA will review EASA and works by commenting to EASA.

EASA's concerns captured the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The US aviation safety agency says the A321XLRs current design is insufficient to protect passengers in the event of an external fire or give them enough time to evacuate if a crash occurs.

Use incognito tab, I have a horrible time beith this sites cookies:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 1xlr-model

The FAA has concerns on flight time with a fire (ETOPs diversion limits). (Links upthread by others).

It is my opinion the FAA and EASA work well together and discuss each others concerns.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Can someone talk about the FAA approval process for this modification? Does the FAA directly follow the guidance/certification of the EASA, or does the FAA have their own review process?

The FAA will review EASA and works by commenting to EASA.

EASA's concerns captured the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The US aviation safety agency says the A321XLRs current design is insufficient to protect passengers in the event of an external fire or give them enough time to evacuate if a crash occurs.

Use incognito tab, I have a horrible time beith this sites cookies:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 1xlr-model

The FAA has concerns on flight time with a fire (ETOPs diversion limits). (Links upthread by others).

It is my opinion the FAA and EASA work well together and discuss each others concerns.

Lightsaber

Thank you. The reason I asked is the FAA appears pretty slow and backed up right now. I am not sure how long their review process would take even though the EASA is the lead agency.

keesje wrote:

Or door 2 back

Did they say why they took it off in the first place?

tomcat wrote:

I thought the A345 had an integral RCT:

Although the -500 shares much commonality with the larger A340-600, it is unique in having a 19,930 litre (5,260USgal) rear centre tank (RCT). According to Airbus, this is a permanently installed fuel tank located in the lower fuselage outside the pressurised area, aft of the centre landing gear bay.

As originally designed, the integral fuel tank used the fuselage skin as its outer wall, but Flight International has learned the FAA was concerned about the crashworthiness of this configuration. Airbus says a Kevlar liner is being developed for the tank to meet the requirements of the FAA's conditional certification issued in January, although the European Joint Aviation Authorities did not require it when it approved the new variant in December 2002.

That was their original intent as I understood it, with the immediate solution being "Concorde kevlar," but the FAA didn't buy it; so they went with more traditional (and now displaced from the main CFT) ACT that were custom made for permanent installation, adapted the tail-tanks to deal with the new difference in balance/trim, and the jettison system to give the ACTs priority.

9252fly wrote:

Does the XLR range of 4700nm already have some weight margin worked in for any potential modifications?

Keep in mind that the 4700nm is achieved with an optional ACT in the forward cargo bay.... which I'm guessing plenty of airlines will choose to forgo.

I've yet to hear Airbus quote the range of the -XLR without it, but I wouldn't be surprised if THAT becomes the more typical range of the ship, in real-world usage.

LAX772LR wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I think the A321XLR and 737-10 MAX will be the last versions of these families.
These grandfathering rules are working against safety and innovation. I think FAA and EASA have realized that.
It's hampering innovation, it's creating an artificial duopoly because any new developed aircraft would cost many times over what a warmed over 737 or A320 costs.
The rules need to be the same for everyone. It's that simple.

That doesn't make any sense.

By that measure, there'd be no 787-10 nor A350-1000, which are the two most advanced aircraft in the sky.

I should have been more precise. I'm talking about updating a generation of aircraft. Like 737-100/200/200adv, 737-300/400/500, 737-600/700/800/900/900ER, 737-8/9/10.
In my opinion every new generation should be held to the same scrutiny and regulation as a brand new aircraft type would be.
I don't think every stretch or shrink should meet the same regulation as a generational leap.
It doesn't necessarily hinder commonality or type ratings. It's just a benchmark to meet.

ikolkyo wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I think the A321XLR and 737-10 MAX will be the last versions of these families.
These grandfathering rules are working against safety and innovation. I think FAA and EASA have realized that.
It's hampering innovation, it's creating an artificial duopoly because any new developed aircraft would cost many times over what a warmed over 737 or A320 costs.
The rules need to be the same for everyone. It's that simple.

Eh, I don't think the A320 series falls in the same category as the MAX. The issue here is just a new center tank addition that Airbus made, it's not nearly as wild as what the MAX has gone through. I could see another A320 version.

If every new generation of aircraft was held to the same benchmark, it doesn't hinder the A320neo from being further improved upon. I agree that the A320 has a better chance of meeting new regulation standards than the 737. Still, in my opinion I think the A320neo might be the last generation for the A320 series.

LAX772LR wrote:

9252fly wrote:

Does the XLR range of 4700nm already have some weight margin worked in for any potential modifications?

Keep in mind that the 4700nm is achieved with an optional ACT in the forward cargo bay.... which I'm guessing plenty of airlines will choose to forgo.

I've yet to hear Airbus quote the range of the -XLR without it, but I wouldn't be surprised if THAT becomes the more typical range of the ship, in real-world usage.

Airbus lists the range of the A321LR at 4000 nmi. The longest regularly scheduled flight of the type I could find is ARN-ORD at 3712 nmi.

Airbus maybe a tad generous on range for both types, particularly going west bound.



https://simpleflying.com/longest-a321neo-routes/

LAX772LR wrote:

tomcat wrote:

I thought the A345 had an integral RCT:

Although the -500 shares much commonality with the larger A340-600, it is unique in having a 19,930 litre (5,260USgal) rear centre tank (RCT). According to Airbus, this is a permanently installed fuel tank located in the lower fuselage outside the pressurised area, aft of the centre landing gear bay.

As originally designed, the integral fuel tank used the fuselage skin as its outer wall, but Flight International has learned the FAA was concerned about the crashworthiness of this configuration. Airbus says a Kevlar liner is being developed for the tank to meet the requirements of the FAA's conditional certification issued in January, although the European Joint Aviation Authorities did not require it when it approved the new variant in December 2002.

That was their original intent as I understood it, with the immediate solution being "Concorde kevlar," but the FAA didn't buy it; so they went with more traditional (and now displaced from the main CFT) ACT that were custom made for permanent installation, adapted the tail-tanks to deal with the new difference in balance/trim, and the jettison system to give the ACTs priority.

Thanks. At least thanks to this first attempt Airbus knows how not to design such an RCT. But what has been designed so differently in this new attempt? Maybe that adapting the fairing was always part of the plan to improve the crash worthiness?

So priority fuel jettison out of the RCT. What else could be done now? Make the belly steel? Some kevlar filler? Fill emptied tanks with N2?

The regulatory concern re the A340-500 and its integral/non-removable RCT centred on the possibility that in the case of a crash landing the centre landing gear might detach in such a way as to damage/rupture the RCT even if Airbus modelling suggested this was an extremely unlikely scenario. The Inner Kevlar liner was the agreed solution to provide the desired safety margin. The XLR is a different design case for which the extended belly fairing appears to be the preferred solution.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Airbus lists the range of the A321LR at 4000 nmi. The longest regularly scheduled flight of the type I could find is ARN-ORD at 3712 nmi.
Airbus maybe a tad generous on range for both types, particularly going west bound.

Sure, though keep in mind that the manufacturers tend to give you the range for "still air," as in, what it would be with static/no wind in either direction (though take care to not confuse it with their range charts, that DO tend to take in wind.)

As such, a handy layperson's tool is to just take 5% off the general range given for TATL or TPAC-summer (10% for TPAC-winter), and you'll find a typical in-service real world max.

JetBuddy wrote:

Still, in my opinion I think the A320neo might be the last generation for the A320 series.

Maybe, but keep in mind that the A32xN is still on a 1987 wing.

Airbus could re-wing it, re-gear it, put a stronger box on it... and you'll have one hell of a "new" narrowbody aircraft, with more or less 767-level performance, and a lot lower cost.

Airbus is so in the driver's seat when it comes to narrowbody/mediumhaul potential, that it's not even funny.
I hate to see Boeing in such a pathetic (though earned) position.

LAX772LR wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Airbus lists the range of the A321LR at 4000 nmi. The longest regularly scheduled flight of the type I could find is ARN-ORD at 3712 nmi.
Airbus maybe a tad generous on range for both types, particularly going west bound.

Sure, though keep in mind that the manufacturers tend to give you the range for "still air," as in, what it would be with static/no wind in either direction (though take care to not confuse it with their range charts, that DO tend to take in wind.)

As such, a handy layperson's tool is to just take 5% off the general range given for TATL or TPAC-summer (10% for TPAC-winter), and you'll find a typical in-service real world max.

Fair enough. Thanks for the info. I still consider the A321Neo LR and XLR to be game changers. Both aircraft should open up many interesting new routes in the coming years. Based on sales in appears many airlines seem to concur.


https://www.businessinsider.com/see-ins ... r-before-1

ElroyJetson wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Airbus lists the range of the A321LR at 4000 nmi. The longest regularly scheduled flight of the type I could find is ARN-ORD at 3712 nmi.
Airbus maybe a tad generous on range for both types, particularly going west bound.

Sure, though keep in mind that the manufacturers tend to give you the range for "still air," as in, what it would be with static/no wind in either direction (though take care to not confuse it with their range charts, that DO tend to take in wind.)

As such, a handy layperson's tool is to just take 5% off the general range given for TATL or TPAC-summer (10% for TPAC-winter), and you'll find a typical in-service real world max.

Fair enough. Thanks for the info. I still consider the A321Neo LR and XLR to be game changers. Both aircraft should open up many interesting new routes in the coming years. Based on sales in appears many airlines seem to concur.


https://www.businessinsider.com/see-ins ... r-before-1

Indeed. Let's just hope its fuel tank modifications don't undermine its success.

LAX772LR wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Still, in my opinion I think the A320neo might be the last generation for the A320 series.

Maybe, but keep in mind that the A32xN is still on a 1987 wing.

Airbus could re-wing it, re-gear it, put a stronger box on it... and you'll have one hell of a "new" narrowbody aircraft, with more or less 767-level performance, and a lot lower cost.

Airbus is so in the driver's seat when it comes to narrowbody/mediumhaul potential, that it's not even funny.
I hate to see Boeing in such a pathetic (though earned) position.

I absolutely agree with that. On both points.

An A320 fuselage on new box, wings, gear etc. would likely have to be certified as a new type even before the increased scrutiny over the last two years.
It might be a really good aircraft though, and would probably share type rating and quite a lot of parts / systems commonality with the A320.

Boeing really needs to start innovating again. Moving HQ closer to DC shows the opposite, IMHO.

LAX772LR wrote:

Airbus is so in the driver's seat when it comes to narrowbody/mediumhaul potential, that it's not even funny.
I hate to see Boeing in such a pathetic (though earned) position.

Yeah, but really the A320 is just catching up. Said no one except Randy Tinseth... My goodness the time squandered...

I look forward to seeing how the EASA and Airbus will cooperate to find a viable and acceptable solution. I imagine the FAA is paying close attention.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Fair enough. Thanks for the info. I still consider the A321Neo LR and XLR to be game changers.

It's kinda weird... in that the -LR can't really do anything that the 752 couldn't have done 35yrs+ ago.
And airlines like Monarch, Air2000, Air Europe, and El Al were indeed using 752s to cross the Atlantic way back in the '80s. BA in the '90s.

But then, it's like airlines (other than CO and FI) just "forgot" about that capability, only to suddenly remember it again circa 2000, where there was an EXPLOSION of intercon 752 ops by all manner of airlines: AA, DL, TZ, MX, even NW. AA especially-- opening up such routes as Cardiff, Birmingham (UK), Stansted, etc.

Then sadly, 9/11 just crapped all over ALL of that. Bringing the overwhelming majority to an end.
I think fragmentation would be so much further along than it is even now, had that momentum not been so immediately halted in place.

JetBuddy wrote:

An A320 fuselage on new box, wings, gear etc. would likely have to be certified as a new type even before the increased scrutiny over the last two years.

There's nothing to suggest that that would be the case.

All I did was describe the transition from 737classic to 737NG. No reason to believe that pre-MAX, the regulators wouldn't have treated it the same for Airbus.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Said no one except Randy Tinseth

Oh wow, I forgot about him!

There was a time when he couldn't go a day without a statement, then haven't heard a peep in years... guessing must've retired?

LAX772LR wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Said no one except Randy Tinseth

Oh wow, I forgot about him!

Ah yes.

Randy who?

PepeTheFrog wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Said no one except Randy Tinseth

Oh wow, I forgot about him!

Ah yes.

Randy who?

Ah yes - the A321 just catching up with the 737-900

LAX772LR wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Fair enough. Thanks for the info. I still consider the A321Neo LR and XLR to be game changers.

It's kinda weird... in that the -LR can't really do anything that the 752 couldn't have done 35yrs+ ago.
And airlines like Monarch, Air2000, Air Europe, and El Al were indeed using 752s to cross the Atlantic way back in the '80s. BA in the '90s.

I've said this many times, but for me, the real game-changer is that this capability is delivered by a variant of the standard narrowbody type in the fleet rather than a dedicated type all on its own.

The LR and XLR are pretty much "just another A321", and more importantly come off the assembly lines soon to be producing 75 planes per month, with all of the economies of scale that brings.
What was the 757's peak production?
I make it 99 in 1992, (about 8 per month) and that was a one-off.

That's the difference for me.

Rgds

emre787 wrote:

tvh wrote:

If I look at these specs, would there be a market for a A321MR ( mid-range). Identical to the XLR, but with a smaller rear fuel tank that takes up just 1 LD3 position. Not everybody needs so much range and it could carry a little more freight.

Well, isn't this the A321LR already?

No the LR has 3 Fuel tanks rear so only 7 LD's vs 8. Also the ACT units weigh a lot more and are smaller capacity.

pugman211 wrote:

Why make another variant when you can just fill the tank halfway? I get it from a cost point of view, that an XLR will attract a price tag premium, but so would an 'MLR'

They can make a standard unit with the same tank, door configuration & gear. In United's case the same model can have the door aft of the wing plugged for the international layout, use the full tank & Max weights. As they are new to their fleet. The domestic model leaves all 3 doors, uses less fuel & is paper certified at lower weights to reduce landing fees. Other than door or plug & paper cert they are the same airframe. Just different passenger instruction cards & minor Pilot/FA difference training.

An update about the flight test campaign.

The construction and equipment installation phases for the three A321XLR flight-test aircraft are rapidly nearing completion in the FAL in Hamburg
before the first of these – MSN11000 – will be handed over to the flight-test team in the very near future. In parallel, ground based testing campaigns are
in full swing at various Airbus sites to prepare for the start of the flight-test and certification programmes.

One of these is the “virtual first flight” (VFF) campaign – whose overall purpose is to clear the aircraft’s new systems, flight control laws and the flight crew for
commencing flight tests. This part of the A321XLR’s development focuses around a dedicated development simulator and a co-located avionics testing laboratory in Toulouse

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stor ... he-way-for

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

An update about the flight test campaign.

The construction and equipment installation phases for the three A321XLR flight-test aircraft are rapidly nearing completion in the FAL in Hamburg
before the first of these – MSN11000 – will be handed over to the flight-test team in the very near future. In parallel, ground based testing campaigns are
in full swing at various Airbus sites to prepare for the start of the flight-test and certification programmes.

One of these is the “virtual first flight” (VFF) campaign – whose overall purpose is to clear the aircraft’s new systems, flight control laws and the flight crew for
commencing flight tests. This part of the A321XLR’s development focuses around a dedicated development simulator and a co-located avionics testing laboratory in Toulouse

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stor ... he-way-for

Interesting details, references and photos!

Airbus' article mentions “eRudder” architecture, what is that?

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Airbus' article mentions “eRudder” architecture, what is that?

This article explains it:

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 03.article

Basically right now rudder control on the A320 is actually a mechanical linkage. Airbus is moving it to full electric like many of the other control surfaces on the aircraft.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Airbus' article mentions “eRudder” architecture, what is that?

The A321XLR is introducing the FBW rudder to the A320 family. It will eventually be ported back to new A319neo/A320neo/A321neo/A321LR deliveries in the future, although I’m not certain of the timeline for that.

Ok, tnx Polot and United.

rbavfan wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

Why make another variant when you can just fill the tank halfway? I get it from a cost point of view, that an XLR will attract a price tag premium, but so would an 'MLR'

They can make a standard unit with the same tank, door configuration & gear. In United's case the same model can have the door aft of the wing plugged for the international layout, use the full tank & Max weights. As they are new to their fleet. The domestic model leaves all 3 doors, uses less fuel & is paper certified at lower weights to reduce landing fees. Other than door or plug & paper cert they are the same airframe. Just different passenger instruction cards & minor Pilot/FA difference training.

United's domestic A321neos are planned to have door 2 removed(standard on flex) and door 3 plugged. Dual overwings with a 195 pax max I believe. This keeps all Airbus 319/320/321 in the fleet standardized with a forward door, aft door and overwings. The only difference is the overwings open slightly different on the A321s.

Gyrfalcon wrote:

The only difference is the overwings open slightly different on the A321s.

Affirm, the NX overwing exits are hinged at the top, and assisted, like the 737NGs.

rbavfan wrote:

emre787 wrote:

tvh wrote:

If I look at these specs, would there be a market for a A321MR ( mid-range). Identical to the XLR, but with a smaller rear fuel tank that takes up just 1 LD3 position. Not everybody needs so much range and it could carry a little more freight.

Well, isn't this the A321LR already?

No the LR has 3 Fuel tanks rear so only 7 LD's vs 8. Also the ACT units weigh a lot more and are smaller capacity.

I think it is important to note that the number of ACTs on the LR can be between 1 to 3, depending on the airline's requirements for its operations.

ikolkyo wrote:

keesje wrote:

Typically authorities don't advice on materials, solutions but focus on complying with regulations. I think they'll be strict on the XLR having the same or better belly land, fire & passenger evacuation specifications as previous A321's.


https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 43.article

With door 2 deleted and the ACT being pretty close to door 3 on XLR, EASA might have taken a extra close look on fire containment and evacuation requirements in worst case emergency situations, rightfully so. But Airbus also, so I think we can expect more on this soon. E.g. maybe the second overwing exit option could help. Or door 2 back

What do the doors have anything to do with the issues reported? It would solve nothing and would add a lot of complexity to the production of the A321, they just standardized the new NX layout.

It seems EASA clearly links the new rear center tank fire containment to evacuation requirements.

Newly proposed EASA regulations for the Airbus A321XLR include ensuring rear center tank fuel vapor does not ignite for at least 5 min. when the tank is exposed to an external ground fire—one of several points in the “special conditions” that address cabin evacuation safety during an off-aircraft...

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

keesje wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

keesje wrote:

Typically authorities don't advice on materials, solutions but focus on complying with regulations. I think they'll be strict on the XLR having the same or better belly land, fire & passenger evacuation specifications as previous A321's.


https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 43.article

With door 2 deleted and the ACT being pretty close to door 3 on XLR, EASA might have taken a extra close look on fire containment and evacuation requirements in worst case emergency situations, rightfully so. But Airbus also, so I think we can expect more on this soon. E.g. maybe the second overwing exit option could help. Or door 2 back

What do the doors have anything to do with the issues reported? It would solve nothing and would add a lot of complexity to the production of the A321, they just standardized the new NX layout.

It seems EASA clearly links the new rear center tank fire containment to evacuation requirements.

Newly proposed EASA regulations for the Airbus A321XLR include ensuring rear center tank fuel vapor does not ignite for at least 5 min. when the tank is exposed to an external ground fire—one of several points in the “special conditions” that address cabin evacuation safety during an off-aircraft...

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

Paywall, but I believe this was discussed in another article. What I interpret is that in the event of a gear up landing or impact to that area of the fuselage, they want to be sure that the tank does not immediately ignite and allows for a proper evacuation to take place. Moving a door 5ft isn’t going to change the outcome a fuel tank exploding.

ikolkyo wrote:

keesje wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What do the doors have anything to do with the issues reported? It would solve nothing and would add a lot of complexity to the production of the A321, they just standardized the new NX layout.

It seems EASA clearly links the new rear center tank fire containment to evacuation requirements.

Newly proposed EASA regulations for the Airbus A321XLR include ensuring rear center tank fuel vapor does not ignite for at least 5 min. when the tank is exposed to an external ground fire—one of several points in the “special conditions” that address cabin evacuation safety during an off-aircraft...

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

Paywall, but I believe this was discussed in another article. What I interpret is that in the event of a gear up landing or impact to that area of the fuselage, they want to be sure that the tank does not immediately ignite and allows for a proper evacuation to take place. Moving a door 5ft isn’t going to change the outcome a fuel tank exploding.

That’s exactly what it means. Prolonging impact of a ground fire from affecting the cabin sitting directly above the fuel tank.

keesje wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

keesje wrote:

Typically authorities don't advice on materials, solutions but focus on complying with regulations. I think they'll be strict on the XLR having the same or better belly land, fire & passenger evacuation specifications as previous A321's.


https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 43.article

With door 2 deleted and the ACT being pretty close to door 3 on XLR, EASA might have taken a extra close look on fire containment and evacuation requirements in worst case emergency situations, rightfully so. But Airbus also, so I think we can expect more on this soon. E.g. maybe the second overwing exit option could help. Or door 2 back

What do the doors have anything to do with the issues reported? It would solve nothing and would add a lot of complexity to the production of the A321, they just standardized the new NX layout.

It seems EASA clearly links the new rear center tank fire containment to evacuation requirements.

Newly proposed EASA regulations for the Airbus A321XLR include ensuring rear center tank fuel vapor does not ignite for at least 5 min. when the tank is exposed to an external ground fire—one of several points in the “special conditions” that address cabin evacuation safety during an off-aircraft...

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

If door 3 is a problem (too close to the center tanks) in a case of evacuation then just delete door 3 permanently for the XLR. Most will not install more then 200 seats on a long range mission anyhow in which case door 3 is not needed.

tvh wrote:

keesje wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What do the doors have anything to do with the issues reported? It would solve nothing and would add a lot of complexity to the production of the A321, they just standardized the new NX layout.

It seems EASA clearly links the new rear center tank fire containment to evacuation requirements.

Newly proposed EASA regulations for the Airbus A321XLR include ensuring rear center tank fuel vapor does not ignite for at least 5 min. when the tank is exposed to an external ground fire—one of several points in the “special conditions” that address cabin evacuation safety during an off-aircraft...

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

If door 3 is a problem (too close to the center tanks) in a case of evacuation then just delete door 3 permanently for the XLR. Most will not install more then 200 seats on a long range mission anyhow in which case door 3 is not needed.

Airlines like Wizzair or Frontier (= Indigo partners) probably will configure the aircraft with more or less max seating capacity, because that’s literally their business model. IIRC, Wizzair already confirmed this. Indigo Partner has a lot of orders for the XLR which they would probably cancel if they cannot use the aircraft with more than 200 seats.
Second of all, leaving out door 3 wouldn’t stop the RCT from igniting or exploding neither.

ben7x wrote:

tvh wrote:

keesje wrote:

It seems EASA clearly links the new rear center tank fire containment to evacuation requirements.



https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

If door 3 is a problem (too close to the center tanks) in a case of evacuation then just delete door 3 permanently for the XLR. Most will not install more then 200 seats on a long range mission anyhow in which case door 3 is not needed.

Airlines like Wizzair or Frontier (= Indigo partners) probably will configure the aircraft with more or less max seating capacity, because that’s literally their business model. IIRC, Wizzair already confirmed this. Indigo Partner has a lot of orders for the XLR which they would probably cancel if they cannot use the aircraft with more than 200 seats.
Second of all, leaving out door 3 wouldn’t stop the RCT from igniting or exploding neither.

Exactly, and to be honest 5 min delaying insulation from external fire for petrol vapor in the RCT doesn't seem like a big ask. But maybe somebody else knows how difficult it is to achieve...

flee wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

emre787 wrote:

Well, isn't this the A321LR already?

No the LR has 3 Fuel tanks rear so only 7 LD's vs 8. Also the ACT units weigh a lot more and are smaller capacity.

I think it is important to note that the number of ACTs on the LR can be between 1 to 3, depending on the airline's requirements for its operations.

2 in the aft cargo and 1 in the fwd. With only 1-2 you use/put the 1-2 in the aft first.