Quoting Dalavia (Reply 41): I guess if the A322 were ever to be built, the marketing folk would insist it be called the A328.

That wouldn't bode well for the aircraft -- given the airframe and powerplant challenges of the smaller predecessor which had the '8' at the end of its model designation. Of course, it may have less weight problems being a stretch, though there could be other issues due to that.   

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 14): The 757 has been a favorite of A.net since the forums originally started. There will always be discussion about a true replacement. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned restarting the production line yet or talked about Boeing shutting down the line being a bad thing.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 49): If the market isn't ready for an A322, then it really does make one wonder why we have all the discussions about MOM. And why Boeing are wasting so much bandwidth frankly.

I think Boeing would make the first move but we know they do not yet have a clear picture of where to go. I don't think it is wasted bandwith. It is legitimate research and development to study the market. Airbus already offers the better product in the larger narrowbody market. An A322 would be taking orders away from the A321 with little net gain for Airbus. It would cost a lot and be limited in production since I don't think Airbus can realistically increase A320 family production faster than they already are doing.

Boeing on the other hand recognizes that the A321 is larger than the 737-9 and has better takeoff performance. Boeing is likely losing orders for airlines looking for something larger but don't need a widebody. If Boeing built a MOM, they would be taking orders away from Airbus. I think Airbus would react and we'd have an interesting battle on our hands.

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 51): I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

I wasn't being serious.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 49): If the market isn't ready for an A322, then it really does make one wonder why we have all the discussions about MOM. And why Boeing are wasting so much bandwidth frankly.

Boeing is looking at it, and it's being discussed on this board, precisely because of your points A & B.

Boeing needs to do something in this space. They just don't know what, precisely, that is yet as they are still doing their market studies. Airbus, OTOH, already has the A321 selling well, so they have the luxury of waiting. I think the 'A322' will be entirely dependent on what Boeing does. If the market tells Boeing they want a direct but more modern A321 competitor, then Airbus does nothing. If the market favors something larger and more capable (which IMO is going to be the conclusion), then Airbus will see what Boeing launches, and base their response on that.

Regards,


Hamlet69

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 46): Unless I am missing something and the number of undecided orders is over 50%, the current sales figures by Airbus show 1114 A321neo orders compared to 3344 A320neo orders.

The 1,114 A321neos combine with 1,230 delivered and 412 ordered A321ceo. If the A321 would be a standalone program it would not be insignificant with 2,756 frames sold.
It is just dwarfed by the 737-800/8MAX and the A320ceo/neo.

Furthermore the A321 sales are increasing in the last years and a 50/50 split with the 320 perhaps not too far off.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 48): I am not advocating for discontinuing anything.

Nice way of distracting form the observation made.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 48): Boeing no longer separates orders between the 737-7, 737-8 and 737-9. All 737MAX orders for the past two years have been recorded simply as 737MAX.

If you need that much cosmetics you are the oldest hag in town.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kALGhbTxdg

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 53): Boeing is looking at it, and it's being discussed on this board, precisely because of your points A & B.

That was my point, really. I believe there is a market out there for MOM.
If that is the case, though, then there certainly is one for an A322.

But as you say, Airbus are not going to move until Boeing declare their hand on MOM

Rgds

For sure Boeing knows that this would be the answer to the MoM - earlier to market and cheaper, not less cost effcicient, slightly less fuel efficient.

Boeing has a simple and cheap solution to avoid the A322 - just don't build the MoM.

There is one problem already with the A321, and worse with every additional row: turn around times. More and more airports use jetways, and only one for narrowbodies. And this means that deembarkment/cleaning/embarkment just take a few minutes longer, so such an aircraft would not be ideal for the short high frequency connections.

MoM/A322 only have a niche for the rather long sectors which do not justify a wide body - no market for more than a few hundred.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 49): And why Boeing are wasting so much bandwidth frankly.

Spreading FUD to potential A321 buyers. New, better, faster, bigger, whatnot just around the corner.
... but the NSA already was a wet firecracker in that respect.
NEO walked right over it and voila : MAX. Size 4 guy in size 7 boots.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 57): For sure Boeing knows that this would be the answer to the MoM - earlier to market and cheaper, not less cost effcicient, slightly less fuel efficient. Boeing has a simple and cheap solution to avoid the A322 - just don't build the MoM.

Airbus would have to make quite a few modifications to the A321 to get to an A322 that would be competitive with a clean sheet design. I think it is possible for them to do it, but it will be quite a significant amount of change to the airplane. The A321 wing is going to be a limiting factor. The newer composite designs with increased wingspan are going to be quite a bit more efficient. I don't know what payload Airbus would be trying to get out of the A322, but if Boeing decides to go for a larger airplane, the A322 is going to need a significant reloft or entirely new wing. The airplane is also going to need a new landing gear to support the weight increases since the single axle will have too high of pavement loading. The airplane would also likely need more thrust too. All these changes would cost far less than a clean sheet design and also take less time to develop. It could be the same story as the A330neo vs 787. One has better fuel burn and operating costs while the other offsets it with acquisition price.

While talking about the modifications necessary to compete with a clean sheet design, it is worth noting that similar changes could be mad to a 737. New gear, new or extended wing, fuselage stretch and new engines could be done on the 737 as well. This type of modification isn't limited to the A320. We could see stretched versions of both the 737 and A320.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 59):

You have been advertising the MAD MAX, where does the clean sheet come in the equitation? Or do you agree with me that Boeing needs a clean sheet MoM?

Burkhard -One of the limiting factors with the A321 turn around times is that the L2 door is very close to the leading edge of the port engine, thus normally only one jet bridge is used on L1. With a fuselage plug increasing this gap then at least in theory it would be possible to comfortably use two jet bridges - although this seems rare in the case of the B757-300.

Quoting MON (Reply 61): Burkhard -One of the limiting factors with the A321 turn around times is that the L2 door is very close to the leading edge of the port engine, thus normally only one jet bridge is used on L1. With a fuselage plug increasing this gap then at least in theory it would be possible to comfortably use two jet bridges - although this seems rare in the case of the B757-300.

Icelandair uses wherever possible L2 on the 757, both -200 and -300, allowing passengers to turn right and left inside the airplane, speeding up boarding.

easyJet approached Airbus years ago regarding a possible A322.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 60): You have been advertising the MAD MAX, where does the clean sheet come in the equitation? Or do you agree with me that Boeing needs a clean sheet MoM?

I believe that both an A322 and 737-10 are possible. Fundamentally the scope of changes are similar. New clean sheet designs are also possible. It depends on what the market wants.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 64): I believe that both an A322 and 737-10 are possible. Fundamentally the scope of changes are similar. New clean sheet designs are also possible. It depends on what the market wants.

Suddenly so mild, why not accept that you changed your position.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 56): That was my point, really. I believe there is a market out there for MOM.

Agreed. But. . .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 56): If that is the case, though, then there certainly is one for an A322.

My point was it will entirely depend on what Boeing does, for now. If Boeing doesn't launch a true MoM aircraft that's significantly different than the A321 now, then I think Airbus will hold off on any A322 until mid-2020's, when 2nd Gen GTF's are available. But if they do go for a clean-sheet, true MoM, or significantly modified/larger MAX, then Airbus will go ahead with some version of the A322.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 66): My point was it will entirely depend on what Boeing does, for now. If Boeing doesn't launch a true MoM aircraft that's significantly different than the A321 now, then I think Airbus will hold off on any A322 until mid-2020's, when 2nd Gen GTF's are available. But if they do go for a clean-sheet, true MoM, or significantly modified/larger MAX, then Airbus will go ahead with some version of the A322.

I dont agree, Airbus has a large team of design engineers that are moved on project to project, this is an ongoing fixed R&D cost for them. They are finishing up with the A320neo, A330neo, A350-1000.

Where to they task these engineers next, I think it will be advancements to the A320 and A350. This sort of project make a lot of sense, if they have an engine available to power it, which I think it the problem, I dont think the PW1135G could be scaled up to to 40klb easily.

A niche A322, which one would expect would have significantly smaller production rate than A320/21 would be a great way for Airbus to trail out CFRP spars and covers for single aisle production.

So do a new wing... more as a de-risking exercise for A30X than anything else - indeed the wing could be a stepping stone to A30X.

Or, A30X could be the existing A320 fuse mated to a new wing (kinda like original A350 concept).

Quoting zeke (Reply 67): This sort of project make a lot of sense, if they have an engine available to power it, which I think it the problem, I dont think the PW1135G could be scaled up to to 40klb easily.

It does make a lot of sense, if there is a market, which I believe there is.

But I don't see the hypothetical A322 as a simple stretch. In order to justify itself over the A321, it will need to be bigger, with the same or better performance. Thus it will be a significant project, a la the 777X. Not just for Airbus, either, but to your point, the engine OEM's will need to buy in, too. And I just don't see the need to spend that kind of money if you already have the dominant platform in that space. It's not like Airbus is hurting for sales. Therefore I don't see Airbus going ahead with it before mid-next decade unless they have to - i.e. dependent on what Boeing does.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 66): My point was it will entirely depend on what Boeing does, for now

I know. Hence

Quoting astuteman (Reply 56): But as you say, Airbus are not going to move until Boeing declare their hand on MOM

 

Rgds

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 65): Quoting roseflyer (Reply 64): I believe that both an A322 and 737-10 are possible. Fundamentally the scope of changes are similar. New clean sheet designs are also possible. It depends on what the market wants. Suddenly so mild, why not accept that you changed your position.

I have not changed my opinion. I think that a stretch with bigger engines, a bigger wing, bigger gear and a longer fuselage could work well for the middle of the market segment. This could be done to either the 737 or A320 or both. What I have noticed is different is that in this thread, the vast majority of posters seem to agree with the idea in the form of the A322. Many did not think such a change was possible in the Boeing middle of the market thread a few weeks ago and shared reasons like the 737 design is old, or the gear and/or wing can't be changed that much or the regulatory authorities would not allow such a modification to the type certification. I debated that those aren't really limiting factors preventing such a design. Those same concerns aren't being posted in reference to the A322, so there is no need to speak up. I don't know if a clean sheet design would work better or not, but I certainly believe that significant redesign can transform the A320 and 737 families to increase capacity and range and fill the middle of the market segment.

The idea that I have for a 737-10 and A322 are quite similar including scope of change depending on what the proposal is. Each would have some unique challenges and differences, but airplanes are not static designs and such evolution can occur. A simple stretch may be less challenging for the A321 than 737-9 but increasing payload and range would probably be important. We all know some of the challenges associated with the original 737-900 that only a few airlines ordered, which was a double stretch of the 737-700 and did not sell well until weight increased with the 900ER and even that has some performance limits. Such problems would probably exist with an A322 unless Airbus invested heavily in addressing range and payload. I think an A322 with no additional payload would not be particularly popular. I think the plane needs bigger engines, a bigger wing and bigger gear. Those same things can be done to a 737 as well. Efficiently Increasing MTOW well beyond 100tons will require some significant changes.

[Edited 2016-03-26 18:39:30]

[Edited 2016-03-26 18:45:18]

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 48): Boeing no longer separates orders between the 737-7, 737-8 and 737-9. All 737MAX orders for the past two years have been recorded simply as 737MAX. Airlines can choose which model they want at a later date. The sales contracts allow airlines to choose any of the three and have prices for all three negotiated. We have no idea how many 737-9 MAX planes have been ordered since airlines don't have to decide when they order.

I've seen Boeing press releases where they break down MAX orders by model, for example the April 1, 2014 press release covering the AC 737MAX order which refers to 33 MAX 8s and 28 MAX 9s. Only the options and purchase rights don't mention the model.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-04-...ada-Finalize-Order-for-61-737-MAXs

Excerpt:

The order, valued at $6.5 billion at list prices, consists of 33 737 MAX 8s and 28 737 MAX 9s, as well as 18 options and 30 rights to purchase additional 737 MAXs.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 72): I've seen Boeing press releases where they break down MAX orders by model, for example the April 1, 2014 press release covering the AC 737MAX

While individual PRs do normally contain a breakdown of models, Boeing has stopped displaying the total breakdown on their website. While I appreciate what Roseflyer says about customers switching orders between models, they've always had the ability to do that. Likewise, Airbus customers have a long history of switching models post-order. Airbus still lists the models as ordered by customers and updates switches on a monthly basis with the O&D spreadsheet.

I'd really like to understand Boeing's logic behind this. As an "orders and deliveries geek", I find it very frustrating not being able to get a proper breakdown of models. I notice Boeing is now also doing this for the 777X. It's very annoying.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 73):

The media acolytes underway everywhere have more leeway in arguing their case with less hard numbers.
In effect it is a "cloaking device". Oh, Boeing does not differentiate orders as they can still change on short notice.


"There could be (wink, wink, wink ) many more -9MAX orders in the box than is apparent.
The A321 doesn't have the popularity attributed by the fans.
... and anyway when the MOM is offered the market space will be completely reordered."

 

There then is no need to invent information from whole cloth like this guy on seekingalpha.com " Boeing started program accounting in 2003" haha.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3901...ngs-common-practice-different-time

Quoting WIederling (Reply 74): There then is no need to invent information from whole cloth like this guy on seekingalpha.com " Boeing started program accounting in 2003" haha. http://seekingalpha.com/article/3901...ngs-common-practice-different-time

I think there is a small redeeming point to his views. The use of program accounting for cost was not apparent at Boeing in the first years of this century. The frames build than were past the influence of program accounting for cost. Low numbers for initial accounting blocks in the past and the resulting low numbers for deferred cost returned by the programs long ago.

When the 787 was developed and cost exploded program accounting for cost raised its head in a serious way. Deferred production cost reached never before seen heights, everything what possible was deferrable was deferred around the 787 and 747-8. All in the name of keeping up possible profits, dividends and bonuses. It was even good to move everything possible out of development cost to early production cost, as development cost is not deferrable.

The deferral of such extreme production cost numbers and the use of the high initial production block numbers, were at least unusual.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 75):

That made the obvious detractors to program accounting more visible.
Control structures appear in the regular run of things as superfluous and otimizable.
But they are there for contigency and in that case they are sorely needed.
Haveing been optimized away the things then tend to break up in a fantastic pile up.
( GFC is a prime example. Supervisory entities were tasked with off premise banalities, defunded, removed all together.)


And was done in a longstanding process to use new interpretations of value to sex up reporting numbers.
( program accounting is by far not the only fib used in the US. the problem IMU is that GAAP is evolved by the industry in their interests. you find this kind of embedding in all reaches of US society afaics. )

Gentlemen, can we get back to discussing the topic "Airbus A322 - An Opportunity For Airbus? "

Hey all,
I wonder what A322 interest, if any, Qantas would have for it's mainline and Jetstar operations? I think an A322 may make sense for both. This could have major implications for Qantas' 737-800 replacement decision, which is eagerly awaited but not expected in the near future.
I like the idea of the A322, and agree that it's a great opportunity for Airbus.
I wonder if Airbus could force Boeing's hand by taking the initiative in the perceived MOM market and pre-empting Boeing by launching the A322 in the near future, a la the A320neo and the 737MAX...
Imagine a surprise launch order for the A322 by a staunch and loyal Boeing customer... Icelandair, Southwest (no no no!), Spicejet etc
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Given what we're seeing in current Airbus engineering philosophy Astuteman's speculative light A322 sounds plausible. That assumes:
- holding MTOW to something like the current level (with maybe a bump to 99 tonnes)
- developing a new wider span CFRP wing
- retaining the current main landing gear
- new engine (coming into service 2025 or later) offering ~10% better SFC than GTF/LEAP
- ... producing an A322 with 4000nm range and an A321 with 5000nm.
Question: Would a new CFRP wing with increased span and fuel capacity invariably require a new wing box? I've always assumed it would (the wing would surely have to be deeper in profile?) but I'm no engineer. If you were trying to get by with the current weight and current landing gear maybe you'd want to leave the wing box alone too if at all possible. Any experts have a view?

Quoting tealnz (Reply 79): - holding MTOW to something like the current level (with maybe a bump to 99 tonnes) - developing a new wider span CFRP wing - retaining the current main landing gear - new engine (coming into service 2025 or later) offering ~10% better SFC than GTF/LEAP - ... producing an A322 with 4000nm range and an A321 with 5000nm.

I don't think all of those things are possible if MTOW is held at current levels. I may be wrong, but I don't think a bigger wing and a new engine is going to get the airplane to the ranges you propose without more weight. The A321neolr is going to be around 97t MTOW. Even with two more tons, I don't think 5000nm range is realistic. An A322 is going to have the same problems with takeoff performance as the 737-900 does. 4000nm range would be extreme. I would think it would be limited to around 2000nm in real world conditions since it will carry around more passengers and structure without more takeoff weight. Without a revised gear, rotation angle is going to be a problem.

I don't know how you will get engine performance to improve 10%. I don't believe engine technologo will improve that much in the next 9 years. PW and CFM would have to merge all their greatest strengths together to have any shot at that. One thing that is going to hurt is the current wing. The airplane at these higher weights is going to only cruise in the flight level 290 to 340 range until the plane gets lighter. Currently on 5 hour flights or longer when the A321 is near MTOW it is only able to climb to around 32,000ft. Sometimes it goes up to 340. With weight increasing for the A322, the plane will be flying even lower. That is going to kill off engine efficiency gains. You won't get 10% SFC is the plane spends hours at or below 30,000ft. To take advantage of a new or bigger wing, I think more weight is needed along with bigger gear or at least tires since the pavement loading will be high.

[Edited 2016-03-27 07:22:25]

[Edited 2016-03-27 07:30:49]

Quoting WIederling (Reply 74): program accounting

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 75): program accounting

Wow, you guys managed to turn an a.net A322 thread into yet another accounting.com thread!

Quoting zeke (Reply 77): Gentlemen, can we get back to discussing the topic "Airbus A322 - An Opportunity For Airbus? "

  

It will be interesting to see if/when we get an A322. In my mind it is a when, not an if. Right now, Airbus has what it wants, full factories and more than half the market share. It probably only needs to launch the A322 if it feels threatened or if it can't keep the backlog full without it. That means it might be quite a way away.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 62): Quoting MON (Reply 61): Burkhard -One of the limiting factors with the A321 turn around times is that the L2 door is very close to the leading edge of the port engine, thus normally only one jet bridge is used on L1. With a fuselage plug increasing this gap then at least in theory it would be possible to comfortably use two jet bridges - although this seems rare in the case of the B757-300.

There is no L2 fwd door on an A321, nor Tu204. The only narrowbody currently operated feat. L2 fwd is the B757, and the now soon gone Tu154. What you see on the a321 is an emergency exit not used for boarding.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 81): Wow, you guys managed to turn an a.net A322 thread into yet another accounting.com thread!

The economic side of business seems to be under appreciated by you.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 80): The A321neolr is going to be around 97t MTOW. Even with two more tons, I don't think 5000nm range is realistic

On those assumptions, I don't see why not.
New engine and wings come weight free, courtesy of c. 2t less of ACT
New engine gets 400nm or so, taking the A321 up to 4 500nm
New wing reduces drag to give another c. 200Nm
extra 2t (if possible) adds c. 300Nm

5 000nm. Nominal in every case.
We can challenge the assumptions of course
Even without the weight increase, a new engine and wings should give an A321 "ENEO" 4 600Nm - 4 700Nm easily

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 80): An A322 is going to have the same problems with takeoff performance as the 737-900 does

A 757-200 length A32X would have a better rotation angle than a 737-900/9. Slightly

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 80): I would think it would be limited to around 2000nm in real world conditions since it will carry around more passengers and structure without more takeoff weight

What real world range do you think the basic 737-9 MAX will have?
The 737-900ER?
The 737-900?

2000Nm sounds a bit too much like derogation to me

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 80): I don't know how you will get engine performance to improve 10%. I don't believe engine technologo will improve that much in the next 9 years. PW and CFM would have to merge all their greatest strengths together to have any shot at that.

RR have gone on record as targeting "10% better than current generation GTF" with the Ultrafan (which is targeted for 2025)

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 80): One thing that is going to hurt is the current wing. The airplane at these higher weights is going to only cruise in the flight level 290 to 340 range until the plane gets lighter. Currently on 5 hour flights or longer when the A321 is near MTOW it is only able to climb to around 32,000ft

I don't think anyone expects a next generation A321NEO stretch to keep the current wing, which makes this paragraph somewhat redundant IMO

Rgds

Astuteman, I am not trying to belittle the opportunity with the A322. What I am saying is that I think the post about not changing gear or further increasing MTOW beyond 100t would not be a good idea. Limiting changes to not include gear and MTOW would limit Airbus from getting all the opportunity out of such a redesign effort that it could.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 84): A 757-200 length A32X would have a better rotation angle than a 737-900/9. Slightly

We don't really know what an A322 length would be, but the original post has 48.87 meters. That's going to cause some rotation angle problems and poor takeoff performance just like the 737-900s. If you add in higher weights the airplane is going to have a fast rotation speed. You are going to have an airplane that either has a lot of extra thrust or requires 9,000ft of runway for takeoff. Airbus can address this with gear changes. If they put on a double bogie and a semi levered gear, they can help improve rotation angle.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 84): What real world range do you think the basic 737-9 MAX will have? The 737-900ER? The 737-900? 2000Nm sounds a bit too much like derogation to me

The 737-900 has about 2000Nm range. Alaska Airlines was able to operate up to 2300nm with the 737-900 until the increased passenger weight guidance came out about 12 years ago, which is why they switched to the 737-800. The longest flights they currently operate it on is SEA-ORD, but it can probably fly 2000nm. The 900ER weight increases improved range and now the 900ER operates up to 2300nm. At this point we are talking a paper airplane with the A322. Without weight increases, gear changes etc, I think the A322 would be severely range limited. That's just my opinion of a paper plane that doesn't exist. I perceive it having some issues unless they increase takeoff weight.

There is plenty of opportunity for the A322, but I think gear changes and weight increases are going to be necessary. Otherwise the airplane is going to have poor performance which will limit sales exactly like we saw with the original 737-900. A a simple stretch, even with a redesigned wing and updated engines is still going to have some challenges. If Airbus is going to put a new wing on it, why not go all the way with upgraded gear and weights?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 84): Quoting roseflyer (Reply 80): The A321neolr is going to be around 97t MTOW. Even with two more tons, I don't think 5000nm range is realistic On those assumptions, I don't see why not. New engine and wings come weight free, courtesy of c. 2t less of ACT New engine gets 400nm or so, taking the A321 up to 4 500nm New wing reduces drag to give another c. 200Nm extra 2t (if possible) adds c. 300Nm 5 000nm. Nominal in every case. We can challenge the assumptions of course Even without the weight increase, a new engine and wings should give an A321 "ENEO" 4 600Nm - 4 700Nm easily

The PW1100Gs together weigh 1 ton more than the IAE 2500s on the A321. The Rolls Royce engines being talked about would probably go up in weight. I am also surprised that you think that a bigger wing with more span would not weigh any more than the current wing. Even with composite structure, if they increase the span 5 meters, I would be shocked if weight did not go up. You also are suggesting that this weight would be offset by additional wing volume for fuel so that the aux tanks are not needed, yet you suggest keeping the aux tanks to get more range. Again I don't know how an A321neoLR is going to get to 5000nm range without MTOW increases. You are really stretching it there and even with that are ignoring my word "realistic" since those numbers would just be a catalog brochure range and nothing close to realistic operating range. No one has even ever tried to fly an A330-300 on a 5000nm route nonstop. 5000nm is totally unrealistic without further MTOW increases.

[Edited 2016-03-28 08:09:27]

I'm not sure we will see an A322...

Airbus seem quite good at reacting to customer demand and investigating new aircraft types if and when there is a demand for one, also John Leahy usually makes it known to the press if they are investigating new aircraft types, and there has been no news of an A322.

The new A321neo will be capable of doing 90-95% of all the sectors the 757 does, including many Western Europe to East US routes... While the aircraft is smaller than the 757-200, airlines seem to be countering this, by simply cramming more seating into the aircraft with less leg room and reducing galley/toliet space.
(For example the A321CEO has had capacity increased from 220 to 230 and the A321NEO will have this further increased to 239 seats - as per Wizzair will be flying.)

If an A322 was to be built, I would imagine Airbus would want to secure an order of 100+ first, regardless of if the gamble has limited risks, compared to a brand new aircraft type. Also many 757 operators are already making provisions to replace this aircraft type, with what is currently in the market place and the longer this continues, the less demand there is for a like for like replacement.

You also need to remember there was (only) 1,050 Boeing 757's built in its 25 year reign, while the A321neo has an order backlog of 1,101, before a single aircraft has been handed to a customer!

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85): The Rolls Royce engines being talked about would probably go up in weight.

Probably. And who alone knows by how much?

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85): I am also surprised that you think that a bigger wing with more span would not weigh any more than the current wing.

I'm surprised that you think I think that. please show me where I made that assumption.
as far as I'm concerned, I've never made that assumption anywhere.
The only assumption I have made is that the c. 2t weight of the aux tanks is approximately the extra that a new CFRP wing and engines would weigh
We can debate that, but we'd be guessing.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85): yet you suggest keeping the aux tanks to get more range

I'm also surprised you think I've suggested that. Can you please point out where I've suggested that?
The whole point is to get rid of the aux tanks by making the wing capacity 25.5t instead of the current 18.6t.
It seems pretty clear that if the aux tanks stay, then the 2t "saving" is not realised, I would have thought

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85): Again I don't know how an A321neoLR is going to get to 5000nm range without MTOW increases

Neither do I.
Again, I've suggested that even with a new 40m wing (optimistically weighed), and new engines (optimistically assumed to be a 10% gain), a 97t A321 "ENEO" would get to around 4 600nm - 4 700Nm nominal

Quoting astuteman (Reply 84): Even without the weight increase, a new engine and wings should give an A321 "ENEO" 4 600Nm - 4 700Nm

is what I said.

Are you trying to make my assumptions seem impossible through the medium of misquoting me?
Or do I need to be even more clear in the assumptions I'm making?

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 87): Are you trying to make my assumptions seem impossible through the medium of misquoting me? Or do I need to be even more clear in the assumptions I'm making?

When you said an extra 2t, I thought you meant tanks. I now realize that you meant tons of takeoff weight. Abbreviations are confusing sometimes.

You said

Quoting astuteman (Reply 84): New engine and wings come weight free, courtesy of c. 2t less of ACT

I think that is unrealistic, but I guess I don't understand what you are saying. How much are you assuming an empty ACT weights or are you removing the fuel and the aux tank? Where does 2 tons come from? A bigger wing and all the systems associated with it along with new engines is going to increase weight quite a bit. But if Boeing can make a 777-9 have more range at a lower MTOW than the 777-300ER, I guess it is theoretically possible to do it to an A322. I don't think the A321 to A322 would allow such a transformation to get to 4000nm range without drastic MTOW increases, but I may be wrong.

Sure you can say that a theoretical A321 ENEO would have 5000nm nominal range on paper. I think we both agree, no one will ever fly it like that unless MTOW goes up dramatically in normal operations. I think you probably agree that an A322 won't fly 4000nm in normal operations either. Can Airbus make the A321 fly Transatlantic? Yes absolutely. Can Airbus get an A322 to fly Transatlantic? That would be a stretch and require quite a bit more weight, but yes I think it could be done. Could the A321 or A322 fly 4,000 - 5,000nm, which is Transpacific range, no, I don't think that will happen if MTOW stays below 100t.

[Edited 2016-03-28 09:25:49]

If it makes sense for Airbus to do an A322, then it makes sense for Boeing to do a Mad Max.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 81): It will be interesting to see if/when we get an A322. In my mind it is a when, not an if. Right now, Airbus has what it wants, full factories and more than half the market share. It probably only needs to launch the A322 if it feels threatened or if it can't keep the backlog full without it. That means it might be quite a way away.

For now Airbus is in a comfortable position in the narrow body segment, but question is how are they going to go head to head against new narrow body 737 replacement from Boeing. Are they going to do it with further development of the 320 family, or develop new family of aircrafts.

Biggest hurdle for Boeing in introducing 737 replacement is not the problem of developing the aircraft, it is the problem of not retaining the 737 pilot type rating, and addressing the production ramp up all the way to 60 aircrafts per month, which could take up to 10 years to accomplish.

If Airbus feels confident they can develop the 320 family into viable competitor against coming offering from Boeing they must plan necessary improvements in time and start to "feather them in" timely, in order to be ready for serious production ramp towards the end of MAX production life

New wing for the 321 and or making of the 322 would be logical first move towards transformation of the 320 family in to next gen narrow body platform.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 42): This is an analysis of what you can "see out of your window", though IMO. You haven't even mentioned the other 3/4 of the globe, particularly Asia, where air travel is expanding exponentially and will easily overtake the USA in the next decade or so.

The only routes I can see for this in Asia is probably the former soviet republics. I believe the market for a 757 replacement is quite limited as only a few route pairs need the 5000 nautical mile range that A321neo/737-9max can't satisfy. Most airlines will buy a cheaper A321neo/737-9max rather than spend much more on a MoM. In another 10 years the fuel efficiency of these two's engines will improve by another 10 percent getting them to 757 range.

sv11

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 88): A bigger wing and all the systems associated with it along with new engines is going to increase weight quite a bit.

The way I would suggest they would proceed would be to simplify the wing/engine systems like the A350, reduce the hydraulic systems down to two, electrohydraulic flight control actuators, high speed ADFX, removing all the LRUs and replacing them with a blade server like the A350. The A350 has shown Airbus how they can simplify system architecture to reduce weight, and improve redundancy at the same time.

With that sort of overhaul you would drop a fair bit of weight, and if you are building a new wing, you could plan on it from the initial design phase.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 88): I don't think the A321 to A322 would allow such a transformation to get to 4000nm range without drastic MTOW increases, but I may be wrong.

To answer that look at the Breguet Range Equation



In all probability, the cruise speed would be increased marginally (M0.8), better L/D by using A350 adaptive wing technology, new engine technology, and new materials.

Quoting sv11 (Reply 91): The only routes I can see for this in Asia is probably the former soviet republics.

Actually China would probably buy a couple of hundred, they are very fond of the capacity of the A321.

It is an option for Airbus. Probably not a pressing one at the moment, but surely something that would make sense as a base for further improving the A320NEO series. Modernized avionics infrastructure, new wing, new high lift devices and so on would probably benefit the whole series. Imho it is something for an EIS around 203-2025. Say a A320 NEO+ in addition to the A322 and A321ULR.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 37): Why did Airbus only go for a re-engine instead of a total upgrade? Like what Boeing did with the 737-3/4/5 to the NG with upgraded engines, lighter materials, avionics, and wings? Had Airbus done that, they would've inflicted more damage upon the MAX and maybe even totally kill the CSeries.

Because Airbus might have been able to "kill" (I love how A.net works) the 737 then it would not kill Boeing who would then be forced into developing a new narrowbody line and aribus don't really want to have to counter this right now. So effectively airbus didn't want to spend a lot of money which would force Boeing to spend even more money so airbus would have to spend a bit more only to draw even again. Aibus seemed to go for spend a little bit and make Boeings life difficult.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 59): Airbus would have to make quite a few modifications to the A321 to get to an A322 that would be competitive with a clean sheet design.

Competitive on fuel burn? Yes. Competitive on costs? Maybe less so.

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):

So in essence it would costs airbus the same to work on the A322 for 2 years as it would for them to do nothing for 2 years whilst they lost their engineering skills.

Fred

Quoting zeke (Reply 92): The way I would suggest they would proceed would be to simplify the wing/engine systems like the A350, reduce the hydraulic systems down to two, electrohydraulic flight control actuators, high speed ADFX, removing all the LRUs and replacing them with a blade server like the A350. The A350 has shown Airbus how they can simplify system architecture to reduce weight, and improve redundancy at the same time. With that sort of overhaul you would drop a fair bit of weight, and if you are building a new wing, you could plan on it from the initial design phase.

I think that is pushing what is realistic for a modification. Reducing hydraulic systems and removing LRUs is going to have an impact on most of the fault trees in the flight control system. That is going to take a lot of analysis and cost a lot of money to do. That scope of change would approach the limits of an amended type certification similar to what Boeing did with the 747-8. It might actually push the edge of certification like the 777x is, and I don't think they have stated if they can get that work done on an amended type certification. I don't know if Airbus would want to go that far. I also think there is less benefit for a narrowbody to have electrohydraulic flight control actuators. If I understand the architecture, the primary benefit to doing that is reduced weight from hydraulic fluid and plumbing. On a narrowbody, there is far less hydraulic fluid and plumbing due to shorter distances. The isolated architecture that Airbus is using on the longer widebody wings may not translate so well into a narrowbody. I'm not sure. Great ideas, but also quite challenging with implementation.

In general while I like the ideas of putting the latest and greatest technology on an A322, there is a point where it makes financial sense and a point where it doesn't. I don't know how many A322s or longer range A321s that Airbus would intend to produce. Would they be looking at a 25 year program, or would they be looking at bridging a 10-15 year gap to a new clean sheet narrowbody?

Anyone have an idea on the suitability of carbon fibre for narrowbody production rates, specifically for a wing?

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter): What is keeping Airbus from possibly filling the 757-sized aircraft need, using a stretched A321neo?

The plans for the Airbus A321neolr. That's probably the airplane that fits the 757 footprint.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 96): In general while I like the ideas of putting the latest and greatest technology on an A322, there is a point where it makes financial sense and a point where it doesn't. I don't know how many A322s or longer range A321s that Airbus would intend to produce. Would they be looking at a 25 year program, or would they be looking at bridging a 10-15 year gap to a new clean sheet narrowbody?

In the grand scheme of things it is not just about the 322, it is about creating next gen system architecture and getting the component producers down the line up to speed producing the necessary parts efficiently, so they will be ready for quick ramp up when time comes.

Why this focus on a 757 replacement?

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 98):

Don't mis-quote me.