AIRBUS | A320 News & Discussion - Page 94 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation > Aircraft

Aircraft civilian and military aircraft, from propeller to jet-powered to experimental


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 2nd, 2019, 11:46 AM   #1861
Lw25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kraków, 日進市
Posts: 3,347
Likes (Received): 1652

They are for sure working on something. In case of neo it took 6 years between first orders to first delivery and in case of ceo they started Joint European Transport program in 1977 (with some works on single aisle dating even back to the 60's) and delivered it in 1988. And to be honest, when Airbus is jumping in front of Boeing in right direction, Boeing panics. 737 NG was looking like a right choice in 90's, but now we know that they are flawed and MAX is costly.
__________________

Rudra5 liked this post

Last edited by Lw25; December 2nd, 2019 at 11:52 AM.
Lw25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old December 2nd, 2019, 12:36 PM   #1862
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,922
Likes (Received): 4302

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Male View Post
The tricky part is that one plane (even with multiple variants) won't probably be able to efficiently compete in the a220 territory, the a320-737 territory and the a321-NMA territory. My engineering skills are very limited but looking at capability of existing planes, Boeing probably have to chose either the first 2 or the last 2.
That is the tricky bit indeed, and the A220 is a modern design with a sweet spot around 130 pax (2 class) and stretchable and shrinkable either side of that. Note the sweet spot for the A320 neo is much more than that and there is no interest at all in the A319neo, it is still too heavy after the shrink. (same for the MAX 7 boeing).

Quote:
As for Airbus, last year there was a rumor of Airbus has started looking into a replacement for the a320 family and a re-engined a350. The rumor started as Airbus was hiring for those projects if I recall correctly. I do agree with you, they will most likely stretch the a220 as that's a cheap but effective option. That will probably replace the lower end of the a320 family. Additionally, my guess is that the base model for the all-new frame will be the size of the a321, with a stretch that is a direct competitor to Boeing's proposed NMA.
What I think is that an all 'new' A320 would be around 200 passengers and with shrinks and stretches from that core. This would mean a 'new' A319 about the size of the A320neo, a new A320 in the current A321 space and a new A322 which would be up to 260 passengers in LCC single class or 220 in dual class.

So 'a new' A320 would move up in size and the A220 would handle the smaller segment. Don't forget that Airbus have a long way to go to produce the A220 at an adequate rate per month right now though. Therefore I can see where Airbus will go, in the end, but the pressure is off them to counter the NMA because Boeing are focused (again) on the NSA to deal with both the MAX fiasco and the A220 getting some traction.

I am assuming that a 737 replacement will not do much to the A321 market though and that it completes most strongly around the 200 seat (1 class) market instead. This is where demand is today.

....and never forget the "Elop Effect" and what it can do to a healthy order book so Airbus will not tell us much until Boeing commit first.
__________________

Rudra5, Shenkey liked this post
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 01:09 PM   #1863
Lw25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kraków, 日進市
Posts: 3,347
Likes (Received): 1652

NMA couldn't be A220 countermeasure for two reasons. Firstly, something between A220 and 757 would have the same problems as MAX 7 and A318/A319, secondly Boeing already have E-2. I think that logical step here would be phasing out MAX 7 and introduction of something like E 200 with LEAP engines (currently, Embaer have more in common in terms of engines with Airbus than Boeing)
Lw25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 01:52 PM   #1864
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,922
Likes (Received): 4302

The Boeing NMA was always an effort to replace the hole left by both the 757 and the 767 and the last news (before the MAX problems) was that it would fill the 767 hole and be a twin aisle, an A330 killer. The NSA was the 737 replacement studied at length before Boeing decided they needed a fast response to the neo programme and came up with the MAX.

The MAX will end up costing Boeing $10bn in the end, they could have developed the NSA for that price.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 02:45 PM   #1865
Lw25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kraków, 日進市
Posts: 3,347
Likes (Received): 1652

Mea culpa, I made a mistake. I ment that Boeing has no point in introducing new plane against A220 because they already bought that kind of plane. There is no point of introducing NSA as a one, becuasue it would share market with their E-2. They need a replacement for 738, 739, both 757 and later MAXes from 8 to 10 and someting against A320/A321, so something between NSA and NMA or NMA. They do not need new A220 size plane, becasue they can streach E195 E-2.
Lw25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 11:42 PM   #1866
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,922
Likes (Received): 4302

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lw25 View Post
Mea culpa, I made a mistake. I ment that Boeing has no point in introducing new plane against A220 because they already bought that kind of plane. There is no point of introducing NSA as a one, because it would share market with their E-2.
I think the NSA would have a central configuration somewhat larger than the MAX and shrinkable to a rough MAX 8 size at the base end and stretchable to A321 territory at the top end.

The Embraers are a tad smaller than the A220 overall if you compare the middle of their ranges.

E2 190 36m MTOW 57 Tons.
A220-300 39m MTOW 70 Tons.


But again my point is that Airbus need do nothing, bar some research, until Boeing finally announce something. Boeing needs to respond to the A321neo and its variants and Airbus will respond to the Boeing response. I'll make 1 prediction, there will be no Pratt and Whitney option on an NSA because it looks like Asian smog has goosed the P&W engine operationally now.

Meanwhile I would like to see Airbus deliver 60 A32x aircraft a month for 6 whole months, now there is a challenge that has defeated them so far.
__________________

Rudra5, Puinkabouter liked this post
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2019, 11:23 PM   #1867
siamu maharaj
樂豪酒店
 
siamu maharaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,361
Likes (Received): 6128

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Male View Post
I just thought about that the other day. With all that is happening to the MAX, the lack of offering to counter the a321 (and co) and now the increasing popularity of the a220. Isn't coming up with an all-new frame the only effective way to win back narrow-body market share?

The tricky part is that one plane (even with multiple variants) won't probably be able to efficiently compete in the a220 territory, the a320-737 territory and the a321-NMA territory. My engineering skills are very limited but looking at capability of existing planes, Boeing probably have to chose either the first 2 or the last 2.

As for Airbus, last year there was a rumor of Airbus has started looking into a replacement for the a320 family and a re-engined a350. The rumor started as Airbus was hiring for those projects if I recall correctly. I do agree with you, they will most likely stretch the a220 as that's a cheap but effective option. That will probably replace the lower end of the a320 family. Additionally, my guess is that the base model for the all-new frame will be the size of the a321, with a stretch that is a direct competitor to Boeing's proposed NMA.
The problem with a new single aisle is that there isn't enough advancement in technology to make much of an efficiency gain. The bulk of the gains come from engines and wings, both of which you can slap on an existing A-320 fuselage. A new clean sheet wouldn't bring much more to the table.
__________________
ho ho to pa ki ho
siamu maharaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2019, 08:31 AM   #1868
Le Male
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bangkok / Paris
Posts: 542
Likes (Received): 789

Quote:
Originally Posted by siamu maharaj View Post
The problem with a new single aisle is that there isn't enough advancement in technology to make much of an efficiency gain. The bulk of the gains come from engines and wings, both of which you can slap on an existing A-320 fuselage. A new clean sheet wouldn't bring much more to the table.
The a320's fuselage is from decades ago. Would having a lighter fuselage (made mainly of carbon) combined with improved aerodynamics (learned from a220/a350) bring enough efficiency gain? By the time they go for that (which is still many many years away), the next generation engine will most probably be available also.

Meanwhile, the A321XLR is continuing to sell well. United just ordered 50. Interestingly, another strong Boeing customer and they are ordered to replace the 757.

Thinking again of the NMA. Yes, the a321XLR is selling well. Pretty well for the minimal investment. But is there a big enough market to justify the huge cost of building a clean sheet plane for it? I doubt. That's most probably why Boeing has rather turned to the NSA (with a stretch that can partially compete in the NMA market).
Le Male no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2019, 10:07 AM   #1869
Bren
Registered User
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Paris 75011
Posts: 10,819
Likes (Received): 21997

United Airlines orders 50 Airbus A321XLRs for transatlantic route expansion



Quote:
United Airlines has placed a firm order for 50 Airbus A321XLR aircraft as it begins to phase out older models and launches an expansion of transatlantic routes from its key U.S. hubs in Newark/New York and Washington D.C. United plans to take delivery of the first A321XLR in 2024 and expects to begin international service with the aircraft in 2025.
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...expansion.html
Bren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2019, 05:45 PM   #1870
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,922
Likes (Received): 4302

I read this United order as an A350 cancellation (unless there is an A350neo and it does not have an RR engine). Not good news for Airbus, overall.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2019, 08:08 PM   #1871
siamu maharaj
樂豪酒店
 
siamu maharaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,361
Likes (Received): 6128

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Male View Post
The a320's fuselage is from decades ago. Would having a lighter fuselage (made mainly of carbon) combined with improved aerodynamics (learned from a220/a350) bring enough efficiency gain? By the time they go for that (which is still many many years away), the next generation engine will most probably be available also.

Meanwhile, the A321XLR is continuing to sell well. United just ordered 50. Interestingly, another strong Boeing customer and they are ordered to replace the 757.

Thinking again of the NMA. Yes, the a321XLR is selling well. Pretty well for the minimal investment. But is there a big enough market to justify the huge cost of building a clean sheet plane for it? I doubt. That's most probably why Boeing has rather turned to the NSA (with a stretch that can partially compete in the NMA market).
From hearing to many Boeing people from time to time, composite fuselage doesn't have any significant weight advantage against latest alloys at narrow body sizes. Composite really comes into its own at larger sizes. Keep in mind, surface area increase by a factor of n-squared. So a plane twice in length will have 4x the fuselage skin, or maybe 3.5x since the circumference may not go up by 2x.

Composite does have other benefits like it doesn't get fractured like metal. But the economics of that I am not aware of.
__________________
ho ho to pa ki ho
siamu maharaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2019, 11:28 PM   #1872
btrs
Moderator
 
btrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 345
Likes (Received): 175

Quote:
Originally Posted by siamu maharaj View Post
The problem with a new single aisle is that there isn't enough advancement in technology to make much of an efficiency gain. The bulk of the gains come from engines and wings, both of which you can slap on an existing A-320 fuselage. A new clean sheet wouldn't bring much more to the table.
Do you really think so ? The Russians seem to disagree with their A320 competitor (MC-21) which is made largely of composites and is a total clean-sheet airplane, instead of some rehashed 1980s airframe with a new engine..

The Chinese are taking it slower and just go for a classic metal A320-like competitor (C919). But that's because their aerospace industry was not able to build complete domestically designed aircraft until the mid-2010s.
And no, I don't take the ARJ-21 or any Chinese military aircraft as a complete domestically designed aircraft.

ARJ-21 is a MD8x-clone with an Antonov wing and CF34 engines and a miserable failure so far. All military aircraft are either license-built or just reverse-engineered Soviet/Russian designs.
btrs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2019, 11:47 PM   #1873
btrs
Moderator
 
btrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 345
Likes (Received): 175

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge_bob View Post
I read this United order as an A350 cancellation (unless there is an A350neo and it does not have an RR engine). Not good news for Airbus, overall.
Well, at least better than a certain UAE carrier that likes to order, then cancels, then orders another type, cancels again, etc.. But let's discuss that in the UAE thread.

It also signals the nail in the coffin for the NMA. Save for Delta and Icelandair, there are no significant customers for 757 replacements anymore.
And even if both eventually should order NMA, I guess the total number of planes will max out around 150. That's just not enough to warrant a $10 billion R&D programme which Boeing cannot finance with the MAX and 777X troubles going on..

Delta could circumvent this problem by picking up either the later built 757's (built 2000-2005) now, or either by picking up the first off-lease A321LR's which have been replaced by XLR's by that time (within 7-8 years).
For Icelandair, A321LR will probably be the way to go if Boeing doesn't deliver on their ordered 737-9's.
btrs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2019, 12:07 AM   #1874
Shenkey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,438
Likes (Received): 2787

Quote:
Originally Posted by btrs View Post
Do you really think so ? The Russians seem to disagree with their A320 competitor (MC-21) which is made largely of composites and is a total clean-sheet airplane, instead of some rehashed 1980s airframe with a new engine..



The Chinese are taking it slower and just go for a classic metal A320-like competitor (C919). But that's because their aerospace industry was not able to build complete domestically designed aircraft until the mid-2010s.

And no, I don't take the ARJ-21 or any Chinese military aircraft as a complete domestically designed aircraft.



ARJ-21 is a MD8x-clone with an Antonov wing and CF34 engines and a miserable failure so far. All military aircraft are either license-built or just reverse-engineered Soviet/Russian designs.


Can you tell me how would Russians know better than Boeing?

Did they build thousands of regular or composite airframes to make a just comparison?

Russians are doing it in composited, because that was the order from the top, for how this is managed you can look at their space program in last decade.
Shenkey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2019, 12:00 PM   #1875
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,922
Likes (Received): 4302

CFM took a moment to gloat about the performance of the Leap-1A engine on the A32xneo family....the Leap 1B and 1C are...shall we say...producing no data right now.

CFM also met the Airbus rate 60 target in October and November, while Boeing is stuck on rate 42 in recent months and not moving off that quite yet.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-power-a321xlr

Quote:
Airbus has indicated that the existing Leap-1A “exactly meets the requirement of this airplane” and that the Leap-1A “answers perfectly” the thrust, fuel-efficiency and dispatch-reliability requirements for the 101-tonne-mtow A321XLR. “Airbus insisted we do nothing to jeopardize the reliability and performance of this product,” in offering it for the 4,700-nm aircraft, he said.
In other words, Airbus does not want any more delays from CFM and are sticking to the same engine so CFM have no excuses on production this time.

Quote:
CFM’s original fuel-performance target for the Leap-1A was for it to be 15 percent more fuel-efficient than any existing A320-family engine. He said the Leap-1A has achieved that target—which in any case referred to brand-new examples of previous-generation engines. Many Leap-1A operators who also have high-hour A320ceo-family aircraft in their fleets, “are seeing [achieved Leap fuel-efficiencies] upwards of 20 percent better than their existing fleets,” he said.


Average dispatch reliability is 99.99 percent, “two to three percent better than the CFM56 [-powered] airplane. The design is stable. It’s too early to say it’s mature, but after 6 million [flight] hours, you know what kind of baby was born.
Don't know whether he is comparing new Leap-1A and average older CFM56 there or comparing new with new.
__________________

patel2897 liked this post
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2019, 06:00 PM   #1876
siamu maharaj
樂豪酒店
 
siamu maharaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,361
Likes (Received): 6128

Quote:
Originally Posted by btrs View Post
Do you really think so ? The Russians seem to disagree with their A320 competitor (MC-21) which is made largely of composites and is a total clean-sheet airplane, instead of some rehashed 1980s airframe with a new engine..

The Chinese are taking it slower and just go for a classic metal A320-like competitor (C919). But that's because their aerospace industry was not able to build complete domestically designed aircraft until the mid-2010s.
And no, I don't take the ARJ-21 or any Chinese military aircraft as a complete domestically designed aircraft.

ARJ-21 is a MD8x-clone with an Antonov wing and CF34 engines and a miserable failure so far. All military aircraft are either license-built or just reverse-engineered Soviet/Russian designs.
From what I have read MC-21 will be close to the A320NEO in performance. Even if it's a couple of percentage better, that's not worth $25 billion investment and 8 years to develop a totally new airplane.
__________________
ho ho to pa ki ho
siamu maharaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
airbus

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us