Welcome to the Airbus A321XLR Development / Testing / Production thread - 2023 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the locked 2022 edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468591

Is XLR No.4 built yet?? I haven't seen it, but may of missed it.

Any MSN's listed etc?

pugman211 wrote:

Is XLR No.4 built yet?? I haven't seen it, but may of missed it.

Any MSN's listed etc?

Those are the 3 active A321XLR's, all Test Aircraft - https://aibfamily.flights/search?aircra ... amily=A320

Thank you, I have those MSN's. I was wondering if there was a list of future MSN's to keep an eye open for.

pugman211 wrote:

Thank you, I have those MSN's. I was wondering if there was a list of future MSN's to keep an eye open for.

Yeah i think that is a bit too early at this point. Entry of service isn't expected until Q2 2024. I believe there were planning another 4th test aircraft, but no sign of that at the moment.

bspc wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

Thank you, I have those MSN's. I was wondering if there was a list of future MSN's to keep an eye open for.

Yeah i think that is a bit too early at this point. Entry of service isn't expected until Q2 2024. I believe there were planning another 4th test aircraft, but no sign of that at the moment.

Perhaps they want to build the fourth test plane with the production style for the centre fuel tank certification.

Do we think that the XLR will be able to manage East Coast/Mid-Continent-Hawaii. I'm thinking from a Canadian perspective, YYZ-HNL/OGG would be an awesome route for the type, though at 4000nm with the ETOPS fuel requirements right at the end, it could be a stretch. The same can be said for routes outside of HNL/OGG to places like ORD and NYC.

whywhyzee wrote:

Do we think that the XLR will be able to manage East Coast/Mid-Continent-Hawaii. I'm thinking from a Canadian perspective, YYZ-HNL/OGG would be an awesome route for the type, though at 4000nm with the ETOPS fuel requirements right at the end, it could be a stretch. The same can be said for routes outside of HNL/OGG to places like ORD and NYC.

Sounds like the exact routes you wouldn't see an XLR on IMO, far too small even it is capable.

ikolkyo wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

Do we think that the XLR will be able to manage East Coast/Mid-Continent-Hawaii. I'm thinking from a Canadian perspective, YYZ-HNL/OGG would be an awesome route for the type, though at 4000nm with the ETOPS fuel requirements right at the end, it could be a stretch. The same can be said for routes outside of HNL/OGG to places like ORD and NYC.

Sounds like the exact routes you wouldn't see an XLR on IMO, far too small even it is capable.

I would argue that the size is what routes like these need, YYZ/YUL-HNL/OGG or ORD/NYC-KOA/LIH probably can't fill a widebody consistently but could much more easily fill an A321.

whywhyzee wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

Do we think that the XLR will be able to manage East Coast/Mid-Continent-Hawaii. I'm thinking from a Canadian perspective, YYZ-HNL/OGG would be an awesome route for the type, though at 4000nm with the ETOPS fuel requirements right at the end, it could be a stretch. The same can be said for routes outside of HNL/OGG to places like ORD and NYC.

Sounds like the exact routes you wouldn't see an XLR on IMO, far too small even it is capable.

I would argue that the size is what routes like these need, YYZ/YUL-HNL/OGG or ORD/NYC-KOA/LIH probably can't fill a widebody consistently but could much more easily fill an A321.

I just looked and saw that AC will be configuring their aircraft with 182 seats, that's more than I thought they would go for. I guess they won't operating them in a higher premium configuration like I expect from AA and UA. If this is the case it could make sense for AC, I don't know if it'll have the legs for it.

I just noticed that Wizzair, a EU LCC, have added a new route from Milan Malpensa to Abu Dhabi. They are flying A321neo with 239 seats. Great circle distance is 3000 nm, so actual flow distance will be higher. Flight time is 6 hours and 35 minutes eastbound, and 7 hours and 20 minutes westbound. Wizzair have a 45 minutes turnaround time in Abu Dhabi.

When this is possible with a regular A321neo, the XLR, with its increased TOW (4 t), lower OWE, improved wing, new engine PIP etc. might perform better than expected by some here.

Much of the discussion around the XLR is related to high premium seating, and long-and-thin routes. The XLRs one-class LCC capabilities might be understated. I guess LCC airlines are keeping their strategies to themselves. Airbus doesn't list XLR orders specifically.

Wizzair, Volaris, Jetsmart and Frontier have the same owner (Indigo Partner Airlines Group). Could we possibly see connections / code share? The XLR can connect their networks.

reidar76 wrote:

I just noticed that Wizzair, a EU LCC, have added a new route from Milan Malpensa to Abu Dhabi. They are flying A321neo with 239 seats. Great circle distance is 3000 nm, so actual flow distance will be higher. Flight time is 6 hours and 35 minutes eastbound, and 7 hours and 20 minutes westbound. Wizzair have a 45 minutes turnaround time in Abu Dhabi.

When this is possible with a regular A321neo, the XLR, with its increased TOW (4 t), lower OWE, improved wing, new engine PIP etc. might perform better than expected by some here.

Much of the discussion around the XLR is related to high premium seating, and long-and-thin routes. The XLRs one-class LCC capabilities might be understated. I guess LCC airlines are keeping their strategies to themselves. Airbus doesn't list XLR orders specifically.

Wizzair, Volaris, Jetsmart and Frontier have the same owner (Indigo Partner Airlines Group). Could we possibly see connections / code share? The XLR can connect their networks.

Are these LRs / does WIZZ have ACTs on their A321?

xl0hr wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I just noticed that Wizzair, a EU LCC, have added a new route from Milan Malpensa to Abu Dhabi. They are flying A321neo with 239 seats. Great circle distance is 3000 nm, so actual flow distance will be higher. Flight time is 6 hours and 35 minutes eastbound, and 7 hours and 20 minutes westbound. Wizzair have a 45 minutes turnaround time in Abu Dhabi.

When this is possible with a regular A321neo, the XLR, with its increased TOW (4 t), lower OWE, improved wing, new engine PIP etc. might perform better than expected by some here.

Much of the discussion around the XLR is related to high premium seating, and long-and-thin routes. The XLRs one-class LCC capabilities might be understated. I guess LCC airlines are keeping their strategies to themselves. Airbus doesn't list XLR orders specifically.

Wizzair, Volaris, Jetsmart and Frontier have the same owner (Indigo Partner Airlines Group). Could we possibly see connections / code share? The XLR can connect their networks.

Are these LRs / does WIZZ have ACTs on their A321?

They are not LRs, but they definitely have ACT. I would guess there are two ACTs. The XLRs RCT takes up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four ACTs (and a lower weight).

reidar76 wrote:

I just noticed that Wizzair, a EU LCC, have added a new route from Milan Malpensa to Abu Dhabi. They are flying A321neo with 239 seats. Great circle distance is 3000 nm, so actual flow distance will be higher. Flight time is 6 hours and 35 minutes eastbound, and 7 hours and 20 minutes westbound. Wizzair have a 45 minutes turnaround time in Abu Dhabi.

When this is possible with a regular A321neo, the XLR, with its increased TOW (4 t), lower OWE, improved wing, new engine PIP etc. might perform better than expected by some here.

Much of the discussion around the XLR is related to high premium seating, and long-and-thin routes. The XLRs one-class LCC capabilities might be understated. I guess LCC airlines are keeping their strategies to themselves. Airbus doesn't list XLR orders specifically.

Wizzair, Volaris, Jetsmart and Frontier have the same owner (Indigo Partner Airlines Group). Could we possibly see connections / code share? The XLR can connect their networks.

MXP-AUH is 2500 nm, not 3000 nm. We also don’t know if there will be blocked seats. I’m also not sure the XLR has a lower OWE than the base A321neo.

Polot wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I just noticed that Wizzair, a EU LCC, have added a new route from Milan Malpensa to Abu Dhabi. They are flying A321neo with 239 seats. Great circle distance is 3000 nm, so actual flow distance will be higher. Flight time is 6 hours and 35 minutes eastbound, and 7 hours and 20 minutes westbound. Wizzair have a 45 minutes turnaround time in Abu Dhabi.

When this is possible with a regular A321neo, the XLR, with its increased TOW (4 t), lower OWE, improved wing, new engine PIP etc. might perform better than expected by some here.

Much of the discussion around the XLR is related to high premium seating, and long-and-thin routes. The XLRs one-class LCC capabilities might be understated. I guess LCC airlines are keeping their strategies to themselves. Airbus doesn't list XLR orders specifically.

Wizzair, Volaris, Jetsmart and Frontier have the same owner (Indigo Partner Airlines Group). Could we possibly see connections / code share? The XLR can connect their networks.

MXP-AUH is 2500 nm, not 3000 nm. We also don’t know if there will be blocked seats. I’m also not sure the XLR has a lower OWE than the base A321neo.

Why should they block seats? That route is well within the type´s ramge.

IGS84 wrote:

Polot wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I just noticed that Wizzair, a EU LCC, have added a new route from Milan Malpensa to Abu Dhabi. They are flying A321neo with 239 seats. Great circle distance is 3000 nm, so actual flow distance will be higher. Flight time is 6 hours and 35 minutes eastbound, and 7 hours and 20 minutes westbound. Wizzair have a 45 minutes turnaround time in Abu Dhabi.

When this is possible with a regular A321neo, the XLR, with its increased TOW (4 t), lower OWE, improved wing, new engine PIP etc. might perform better than expected by some here.

Much of the discussion around the XLR is related to high premium seating, and long-and-thin routes. The XLRs one-class LCC capabilities might be understated. I guess LCC airlines are keeping their strategies to themselves. Airbus doesn't list XLR orders specifically.

Wizzair, Volaris, Jetsmart and Frontier have the same owner (Indigo Partner Airlines Group). Could we possibly see connections / code share? The XLR can connect their networks.

MXP-AUH is 2500 nm, not 3000 nm. We also don’t know if there will be blocked seats. I’m also not sure the XLR has a lower OWE than the base A321neo.

Why should they block seats? That route is well within the type´s ramge.

I’ll be honest, I had a brain fart and was thinking 3500 nm and not 2500 nm with the seat block comment. You are right if the plane has 1 or especially 2 ACTs 2500nm should not be a major issue even with 239 passengers.

reidar76 wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I just noticed that Wizzair, a EU LCC, have added a new route from Milan Malpensa to Abu Dhabi. They are flying A321neo with 239 seats. Great circle distance is 3000 nm, so actual flow distance will be higher. Flight time is 6 hours and 35 minutes eastbound, and 7 hours and 20 minutes westbound. Wizzair have a 45 minutes turnaround time in Abu Dhabi.

When this is possible with a regular A321neo, the XLR, with its increased TOW (4 t), lower OWE, improved wing, new engine PIP etc. might perform better than expected by some here.

Much of the discussion around the XLR is related to high premium seating, and long-and-thin routes. The XLRs one-class LCC capabilities might be understated. I guess LCC airlines are keeping their strategies to themselves. Airbus doesn't list XLR orders specifically.

Wizzair, Volaris, Jetsmart and Frontier have the same owner (Indigo Partner Airlines Group). Could we possibly see connections / code share? The XLR can connect their networks.

Are these LRs / does WIZZ have ACTs on their A321?

They are not LRs, but they definitely have ACT. I would guess there are two ACTs. The XLRs RCT takes up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four ACTs (and a lower weight).

What's the difference between A321 with some ACTs and a high MTOW option and LR? I thought the LR was a mere MTOW option with a cool marketing name.

And - as you say - XLR has actual new engineering in it. RCT, wing, rudder...

xl0hr wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

Are these LRs / does WIZZ have ACTs on their A321?

They are not LRs, but they definitely have ACT. I would guess there are two ACTs. The XLRs RCT takes up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four ACTs (and a lower weight).

What's the difference between A321 with some ACTs and a high MTOW option and LR? I thought the LR was a mere MTOW option with a cool marketing name.

And - as you say - XLR has actual new engineering in it. RCT, wing, rudder...

The LR is the 97t option. It is not the build standard, i.e. 93.5t A321neos are not paper de-weights of the 97t the higher mtow must be optioned and built in during production, as there is a (slight) weight penalty jumping from 93.5t to 97t. Since most customers do not need the higher weights Airbus didn’t want to penalize them with an unnecessarily higher OEW (again it’s slight).

Polot wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

They are not LRs, but they definitely have ACT. I would guess there are two ACTs. The XLRs RCT takes up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four ACTs (and a lower weight).

What's the difference between A321 with some ACTs and a high MTOW option and LR? I thought the LR was a mere MTOW option with a cool marketing name.

And - as you say - XLR has actual new engineering in it. RCT, wing, rudder...

The LR is the 97t option. It is not the build standard, i.e. 93.5t A321neos are not paper de-weights of the 97t the higher mtow must be optioned and built in during production, as there is a (slight) weight penalty jumping from 93.5t to 97t. Since most customers do not need the higher weights Airbus didn’t want to penalize them with an unnecessarily higher OEW (again it’s slight).

Thank you! That was quick and helpful! One more if I may :

What's the physical difference in the wing? Single slotted outboard flaps? New flap settings are software I assume? Am I missing something?

Single slotted inboard flaps only, outboard are still double slot. The Trk 2 fairing is also different.

Polot wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

They are not LRs, but they definitely have ACT. I would guess there are two ACTs. The XLRs RCT takes up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four ACTs (and a lower weight).

What's the difference between A321 with some ACTs and a high MTOW option and LR? I thought the LR was a mere MTOW option with a cool marketing name.

And - as you say - XLR has actual new engineering in it. RCT, wing, rudder...

The LR is the 97t option. It is not the build standard, i.e. 93.5t A321neos are not paper de-weights of the 97t the higher mtow must be optioned and built in during production, as there is a (slight) weight penalty jumping from 93.5t to 97t. Since most customers do not need the higher weights Airbus didn’t want to penalize them with an unnecessarily higher OEW (again it’s slight).

I thought that the 93.5t limitation on the A321neo only applied to original 8 full-size door version, and that all ACF configured aircraft are 97t capable (especially since the LR is only available in the ACF configuration). Happy to stand corrected, however.

United857 wrote:

Polot wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

What's the difference between A321 with some ACTs and a high MTOW option and LR? I thought the LR was a mere MTOW option with a cool marketing name.

And - as you say - XLR has actual new engineering in it. RCT, wing, rudder...

The LR is the 97t option. It is not the build standard, i.e. 93.5t A321neos are not paper de-weights of the 97t the higher mtow must be optioned and built in during production, as there is a (slight) weight penalty jumping from 93.5t to 97t. Since most customers do not need the higher weights Airbus didn’t want to penalize them with an unnecessarily higher OEW (again it’s slight).

I thought that the 93.5t limitation on the A321neo only applied to original 8 full-size door version, and that all ACF configured aircraft are 97t capable (especially since the LR is only available in the ACF configuration). Happy to stand corrected, however.

No. The ACF configuration is lighter than the old exits, which is why it is required on the LR, since weight savings negate wait gain from additional structural support for 97t and the base weight of the plane is roughly similar to A321neo with old exit configuration (obviously with 3 ACTs installed it weighs more). If the aircraft isn’t optioned for the 97t Airbus does not add the additional structural support and passes weight savings from ACF on. You can’t take any ACF A321neo and convert it into a LR afterwards.

A321neoXLR test frame F-WWBZ has just completed a week of extreme cold weather testing at YFB







https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/16290 ... 87457?s=20

qf789 wrote:

What a pretty flap!

Is there anything known about the extra lining of the RCT? Is that gonna solve EASA's concerns? Is the 400kg MTOW bump offsetting its weight (and thereby performance remains unimpaired)?

xl0hr wrote:

Is there anything known about the extra lining of the RCT? Is that gonna solve EASA's concerns?

No real reason it shouldn't, as similar was used to rectify similar regulatory concerns over the RCT in the A340-500.

qf789 wrote:

A321neoXLR test frame F-WWBZ has just completed a week of extreme cold weather testing at YFB







https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/16290 ... 87457?s=20

I notice that the Pratt & Whitney logo has been replaced with Collins Aerospace. Are Raytheon planning on rebranding P&W or is this just Raytheon wanting to promote Collins Aerospace?

Breathe wrote:

qf789 wrote:

A321neoXLR test frame F-WWBZ has just completed a week of extreme cold weather testing at YFB







https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/16290 ... 87457?s=20

I notice that the Pratt & Whitney logo has been replaced with Collins Aerospace. Are Raytheon planning on rebranding P&W or is this just Raytheon wanting to promote Collins Aerospace?

I'm assuming they advertising the number of Collins Aerospace components on the GTF engine. While Collins and Pratt are subsidiaries of Raytheon they probably function independently of one another IMO.

LAX772LR wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

Is there anything known about the extra lining of the RCT? Is that gonna solve EASA's concerns?

No real reason it shouldn't, as similar was used to rectify similar regulatory concerns over the RCT in the A340-500.

Thanks! I thought "it's a whole different regulatory landscape out there" might have changed what was fine back when A345 got certified.

xl0hr wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

Is there anything known about the extra lining of the RCT? Is that gonna solve EASA's concerns?

No real reason it shouldn't, as similar was used to rectify similar regulatory concerns over the RCT in the A340-500.

Thanks! I thought "it's a whole different regulatory landscape out there" might have changed what was fine back when A345 got certified.

I don’t think EASA have ever delegated authority to a manufacturer to the extent that the FAA did to Boeing. Thus they are probably very much more comfortable with what was done previously.

StTim wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

No real reason it shouldn't, as similar was used to rectify similar regulatory concerns over the RCT in the A340-500.

Thanks! I thought "it's a whole different regulatory landscape out there" might have changed what was fine back when A345 got certified.

I don’t think EASA have ever delegated authority to a manufacturer to the extent that the FAA did to Boeing. Thus they are probably very much more comfortable with what was done previously.

The GAO did an in-depth comparison of FAA to EASA certification processes. When it comes to delegation, FAA assesses each certification task and decides who will have authority for compliance. That may shift during the process as risk is retired, but they rely heavily on the manufacturer. Then the FAA reviews the work in total at the end.

In contrast, EASA delegates the entire certification compliance authority to manufacturers, retaining none of it themselves. They rely instead on the process that establishes delegation approval. Manufacturers must undergo a rigorous process to be sure they are qualified to assess compliance, and then are regularly audited. EASA also then does a final review.

There are also differences in funding. FAA relies on federal funding whereas EASA is funded by manufacturer fees. And differences in how manufacturer expertise is viewed. FAA views the manufacturer's aircraft team as being most qualified to assess compliance, and drafts delegates from among the members. EASA requires that manufacturer delegates must be from outside the aircraft team (or at least cross working groups), so the delegates are not reviewing the work of their own group.

The varying approaches are quite interesting. The GAO made no attempt to determine superiority of either system, and concluded they are comparable.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104480.pdf

As far as changes in the regulatory environment, it's important to note that little has changed in terms of delegation or the certification processes. The thing that has changed, is that the FAA final review is now much tighter and more rigorous. It now takes much more time, and documentation is rejected for even minor issues.

That is how the FAA has chosen to deal with the possibility of escapements. It's basically back-loading the rigor, vs front-loading it within the EASA system.

With regard to the A321XLR certification, there would be no reason to believe that Airbus cannot demonstrate compliance with the special conditions set forth by both EASA and FAA. Or that the regulatory environment would alter that, apart from taking a little more time in review.

Avatar2go, thanks for explaining all the differences between EASA and FAA certifications, I certainly got a better idea of how it works.

The A321XLR looks great up in old Frobisher Bay.

Bloomberg reports that Airbus is warning customers of possible further delays to the A321XLR - can anyone explain why?

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ify%20wall

DartHerald wrote:

Bloomberg reports that Airbus is warning customers of possible further delays to the A321XLR - can anyone explain why?

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ify%20wall

Aircraft manufacturers are going to face enhanced scrutiny for years to come I just hope this extra oversight doesn't stifle innovation. Boeing stating no new launches this decade might be a byproduct of this regulatory climate caused by themselves.

I hate referencing simple flying but they summarize the paywalled Bloomberg article.

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr ... ry-delays/

LAX772LR wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

Is there anything known about the extra lining of the RCT? Is that gonna solve EASA's concerns?

No real reason it shouldn't, as similar was used to rectify similar regulatory concerns over the RCT in the A340-500.

For the record, the EASA has published 3 special conditions in relation to the RCT of the XLR. The latest one (SC-E25.963-01) was published on Dec 8, 2022 and adresses the RCT crashworthiness while the first two ones addressed the protection against external fire burnthrough and the protection against the fuel vapour ignition and fuel tank explosion.

Regarding the RCT crashworthiness, here are the requirements:

MEANS OF COMPLIANCE TO SPECIAL CONDITION SC-E25.963-01
1. Additional design precautions
The applicant should consider incorporation of additional global design features, so far as is practicable, such as a bladder and crushable structure to mitigate the effects of impact and scraping on the ground, including contact with obstacles. The design should be evaluated considering the points 2., 3., 4. and, if applicable, 5. below.
2. Fuselage break points
3. Crushing of lower fuselage under vertical descent impact velocities
4. Sliding on the ground
5. Internal Protection

(I didn't copy the requirements of points 2, 3, 4 and 5 here)

Although this special condition reports that Airbus has already performed aeroplane level analysis that show the RCT is well located and better protected from impact scenarios than the other sections of the fuselage, this analysis only addresses the point 2.

Regarding points 3 and 4, a lining will probably not be sufficient as suggested in point 1.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/product-certification-consultations/proposed-special-condition-ref-sc-e25963-01

That drop test would be interesting to say the least to see if it deforms the RCT.

Here are some of the changes being implemented on the XLR some of which are news to me.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stor ... -in-flight

JohanTally wrote:

Here are some of the changes being implemented on the XLR some of which are news to me.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stor ... -in-flight

Cool! I find those to be most interesting:

Lower cabin altitude of 6000ft (at 33kft cruise). Sounds mainly like a software change.

Better sound and thermal insulation at door 1 & 4 (+curtains ) after customer feedback. In general they seem to be after a quiter ride than current A321. Cool.

Lighter sidewall panels.

Heated floor panels.

xl0hr wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Here are some of the changes being implemented on the XLR some of which are news to me.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stor ... -in-flight

Cool! I find those to be most interesting:

Lower cabin altitude of 6000ft (at 33kft cruise). Sounds mainly like a software change.

Better sound and thermal insulation at door 1 & 4 (+curtains ) after customer feedback. In general they seem to be after a quiter ride than current A321. Cool.

Lighter sidewall panels.

Heated floor panels.

That 6000ft cabin altitude looks like it will incorporated for all A320 family aircraft which I assume means NEOs. Definitely more features than we were originally privy to

xl0hr wrote:

Heated floor panels.

The heated floor panels would be one of the remediations for having cold fuel directly below the passengers.

Avatar2go wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

Heated floor panels.

The heated floor panels would be one of the remediations for having cold fuel directly below the passengers.

Would they?

Additionally, in the Doors-1 and Doors-4 entrance areas we have new heated floor panels

They don't mention any other area. It looks like they are improving the comfort of the cabin crew for the long haul flights. See also these new textile door covers:

We have also developed an optional thermal/acoustic ‘Textile Door Cover’ for Doors-1 and Doors-4 which can be attached via magnets to each door by the crew during flight.

Avatar2go wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

Heated floor panels.

The heated floor panels would be one of the remediations for having cold fuel directly below the passengers.

They've also been available for quite some time. I believe the A320/330/340/380 and 787 have them available from Collins.

JohanTally wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

Heated floor panels.

The heated floor panels would be one of the remediations for having cold fuel directly below the passengers.

They've also been available for quite some time. I believe the A320/330/340/380 and 787 have them available from Collins.

In December, Airbus said they were still working out the insulation requirements, as they didn't meet the fire safety standard set forth by EASA and FAA. So I thought perhaps heating might be an alternative or adjunct to the insulation requirement.

Avatar2go wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

The heated floor panels would be one of the remediations for having cold fuel directly below the passengers.

They've also been available for quite some time. I believe the A320/330/340/380 and 787 have them available from Collins.

In December, Airbus said they were still working out the insulation requirements, as they didn't meet the fire safety standard set forth by EASA and FAA. So I thought perhaps heating might be an alternative or adjunct to the insulation requirement.

I hope they work out a solution with minimal weight gain.

JohanTally wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

They've also been available for quite some time. I believe the A320/330/340/380 and 787 have them available from Collins.

In December, Airbus said they were still working out the insulation requirements, as they didn't meet the fire safety standard set forth by EASA and FAA. So I thought perhaps heating might be an alternative or adjunct to the insulation requirement.

I hope they work out a solution with minimal weight gain.

There is no reason for any sort of insulation solution to add tons to the empty weight because most insulating materials have a low density. The worst case would be an extension of the belly fairing to cover any insulation which would be installed on the outer surface of the fuel tank external boundary (the RCT extending slightly further aft of the current belly fairing from what I could see on the pictures published by Airbus). The crashworthiness requirements might be more challenging in terms of weight impact, but again, they only apply on a fairly limited area, so the potential weight impact is limited.

tomcat wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

In December, Airbus said they were still working out the insulation requirements, as they didn't meet the fire safety standard set forth by EASA and FAA. So I thought perhaps heating might be an alternative or adjunct to the insulation requirement.

I hope they work out a solution with minimal weight gain.

There is no reason for any sort of insulation solution to add tons to the empty weight because most insulating materials have a low density. The worst case would be an extension of the belly fairing to cover any insulation which would be installed on the outer surface of the fuel tank external boundary (the RCT extending slightly further aft of the current belly fairing from what I could see on the pictures published by Airbus). The crashworthiness requirements might be more challenging in terms of weight impact, but again, they only apply on a fairly limited area, so the potential weight impact is limited.

It seemed like the constraint was on volume rather than weight. Airbus said there wasn't room between the floor and the tank to install the standard fire-safety approved aeronautical thermal/acoustic insulation. That space is already required for ventilation & pressure equalization from the upper to lower deck. So they were looking at insulation alternatives that would not block that space. But whatever that turns out to be, it also has to meet the fire safety standards.

Boeing had made the argument that the standards for the integrated tank should be the same as for the wing box tank, but the FAA rejected that, saying the wing box application had other safety risks that weren't applicable to the integrated tank. It just has to meet the same requirements as segregated fuselage tanks. Which basically means, no added safety risk compared to sections without the tanks. Those are the special conditions.

How much is the program delayed based on the EASA and FAA new requirements?

ElroyJetson wrote:

How much is the program delayed based on the EASA and FAA new requirements?

Airbus says certification expected Q2 2024. Airlines say they are expecting deliveries late 2024, early 2025.

Avatar2go wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

How much is the program delayed based on the EASA and FAA new requirements?

Airbus says certification expected Q2 2024. Airlines say they are expecting deliveries late 2024, early 2025.

Sounds like an aggressive time line. With the FAA issues with certification likely everything will have to go perfectly.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

How much is the program delayed based on the EASA and FAA new requirements?

Airbus says certification expected Q2 2024. Airlines say they are expecting deliveries late 2024, early 2025.

Sounds like an aggressive time line. With the FAA issues with certification likely everything will have to go perfectly.

I wouldn't be surprised if the timeline slipped but this is just a modified version of an existing aircraft. How long did the A321LR certification take?

JohanTally wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Airbus says certification expected Q2 2024. Airlines say they are expecting deliveries late 2024, early 2025.

Sounds like an aggressive time line. With the FAA issues with certification likely everything will have to go perfectly.

I wouldn't be surprised if the timeline slipped but this is just a modified version of an existing aircraft. How long did the A321LR certification take?

Flight testing started in end of January 2018 and the A321LR was certified in October the same year.

https://livefromalounge.com/airbus-a321lr-first-flight/
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... or-a321neo