Airliners.net

Apologies if this has its own thread or there's already a dedicated place for A220 news, but this is quite noteworthy: the A220's MTOW is being boosted by 2.3T, giving a range increase of roughly 450nm for the A221 and A223.

During its Innovation Days press briefing in Toulouse, Airbus announced that it has increased the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the A220 aircraft (formerly Bombardier CSeries) by an additional 2.3 metric tonnes, resulting in maximum range increase of 450 nautical miles. The range of the A220-300 variant of the aircraft will grow to 3,350nm and the A220-100 will increase to 3,400 nm.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarci ... 090af06454

MrHMSH wrote:

Apologies if this has its own thread or there's already a dedicated place for A220 news, but this is quite noteworthy: the A220's MTOW is being boosted by 2.3T, giving a range increase of roughly 450nm for the A221 and A223.

During its Innovation Days press briefing in Toulouse, Airbus announced that it has increased the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the A220 aircraft (formerly Bombardier CSeries) by an additional 2.3 metric tonnes, resulting in maximum range increase of 450 nautical miles. The range of the A220-300 variant of the aircraft will grow to 3,350nm and the A220-100 will increase to 3,400 nm.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarci ... 090af06454

So MTOW increased, did fuel capacity as well?

That is a huge increase in range. For reference the 737-300 was 2,255nm. 737-700 is 3,000nm. Honestly the CS300 seems like a better deal than the 73G

It'll also connect into other things that are in the early stages as well.

Amazing news. If Airbus can get the production fixed then I can see major orders rolling in to replace 737-700s and A319s.

I think this is not to give small aircraft more range, but the facilitate a new A220-500 with reasonable range.



https://airlinerwatch.com/airbus-considers-developing-an-extended-version-of-the-a220/

And no, it won't replace the A320NEO

NYCSKYGUY wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Apologies if this has its own thread or there's already a dedicated place for A220 news, but this is quite noteworthy: the A220's MTOW is being boosted by 2.3T, giving a range increase of roughly 450nm for the A221 and A223.

During its Innovation Days press briefing in Toulouse, Airbus announced that it has increased the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the A220 aircraft (formerly Bombardier CSeries) by an additional 2.3 metric tonnes, resulting in maximum range increase of 450 nautical miles. The range of the A220-300 variant of the aircraft will grow to 3,350nm and the A220-100 will increase to 3,400 nm.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarci ... 090af06454

So MTOW increased, did fuel capacity as well?

With just about every plane I can think of, if you were carrying maximum payload, you couldn't carry maximum fuel and vice versa. Even if the fuel capacity didn't increase, it's still possible that on a given flight, it might be able to carry more fuel without as much of a payload weight restriction.

keesje wrote:

I think this is not to give small aircraft more range, but the facilitate a new A220-500 with reasonable range.

I have to agree that this is likely to happen

And no, it won't replace the A320NEO

IIRC the A320neo would have a similar capacity but more range and better field performance than this speculative A220-500. Also the A320neo's SHARP package would only make that field performance better.

Doesn't this also mean that the A220 is much more economic than previously thought and for shorter hops like those done by Swiss Air or Air Baltic it is burning less fuel and needs to onload less fuel than previously proscribed which still further compounds the improved fuel economy.

It should be noted that the A220-100 gets a 450nm increase in range BUT the A220-300 only receives a 150nm bump. Still great though!

I am very pleased to see the CS100/300 improving this way. I just hope more airlines can see how great these aircraft are and increase the order book.

leghorn wrote:

Doesn't this also mean that the A220 is much more economic than previously thought and for shorter hops like those done by Swiss Air or Air Baltic it is burning less fuel and needs to onload less fuel than previously proscribed which still further compounds the improved fuel economy.

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion based on the OP's citation or linked article. Care to expand upon the idea?

MoKa777 wrote:

It should be noted that the A220-100 gets a 450nm increase in range

I wonder what maximum range Airbus could squeeze out of a 19-pax, VIP configured A221 at this increased MTOW...taking into account the usual reserves for holding and alternates?

keesje wrote:

I think this is not to give small aircraft more range, but the facilitate a new A220-500 with reasonable range.
https://airlinerwatch.com/airbus-considers-developing-an-extended-version-of-the-a220/
And no, it won't replace the A320NEO

This is not a perfect comparison, but something that I have been contemplating: For Airbus to simulatneously produce the A320 series and the A220 (especially if the A225 becomes reality) has some similarities with Boeing simultaneously producing the 727 and 737. There was significant overlap, but some important differences in capability.

leghorn wrote:

Doesn't this also mean that the A220 is much more economic than previously thought and for shorter hops like those done by Swiss Air or Air Baltic it is burning less fuel and needs to onload less fuel than previously proscribed which still further compounds the improved fuel economy.

Not necessarily. Looks like this range increase is coming from an MTOW increase, not a fuel burn reduction.

wrongwayup wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Doesn't this also mean that the A220 is much more economic than previously thought and for shorter hops like those done by Swiss Air or Air Baltic it is burning less fuel and needs to onload less fuel than previously proscribed which still further compounds the improved fuel economy.

Not necessarily. Looks like this range increase is coming from an MTOW increase, not a fuel burn reduction.

What surprises me is the minute range increase for 2.3 tons. Only 150nm more for 2.3 tons?!? Since even widebodies are not burning 7 metric tons per hour and the A220-300 has a very low wing loading, this implies the fuel tank volume limit has been reached (with reserves).

So this is for payload at range. About 3 rows more payload at range.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Doesn't this also mean that the A220 is much more economic than previously thought and for shorter hops like those done by Swiss Air or Air Baltic it is burning less fuel and needs to onload less fuel than previously proscribed which still further compounds the improved fuel economy.

Not necessarily. Looks like this range increase is coming from an MTOW increase, not a fuel burn reduction.

What surprises me is the minute range increase for 2.3 tons. Only 150nm more for 2.3 tons?!? Since even widebodies are not burning 7 metric tons per hour and the A220-300 has a very low wing loading, this implies the fuel tank volume limit has been reached (with reserves).

So this is for payload at range. About 3 rows more payload at range.

Lightsaber

Could the issue of small tanks in the A223 be fixed later via paperwork? I seem to remember them “unlocking” additional fuel capacity in the A320, which was physically present but not certified for use.

lightsaber wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Doesn't this also mean that the A220 is much more economic than previously thought and for shorter hops like those done by Swiss Air or Air Baltic it is burning less fuel and needs to onload less fuel than previously proscribed which still further compounds the improved fuel economy.

this implies the fuel tank volume limit has been reached (with reserves).

I have it on good authority that this is the case, at least for Airbus' "typical" configuration. Solvable with aux tanks though... Airbus is good at that.

Now to get production up past 60 per year, right now the backlog is over 6 years. The A220 needs to get past 400 in service to get out of orphan territory, I hope this plane does well.

speedbird52 wrote:

That is a huge increase in range. For reference the 737-300 was 2,255nm. 737-700 is 3,000nm. Honestly the CS300 seems like a better deal than the 73G

Another good reason why Boeing wanted to kill it.

Was the work done before Airbus involvement or after Airbus took over the program?

So the airlines that bought the "first generation" CS300/A220 got an inferior product?

So basically 450nm is an extra 55-60 minutes of flying time which in hindsight means that the plane can realistically fly 7 hours nonstop with a full payload of pax and cargo.

It is by far the best narrow body out there in the 110-150 seater marketplace and I hope to see a size able order placed by Air France soon to replace their E-Jets, A319s and A318s.

Lewton wrote:

So the airlines that bought the "first generation" CS300/A220 got an inferior product?

This is always the case with everything in life, especially technology. As technology advances previous generations of products will be “inferior”. However if you always wait for the next generation, you will never buy.

Lewton wrote:

So the airlines that bought the "first generation" CS300/A220 got an inferior product?

No, they bought the best product on the market at the time, based on the specs outlined by Bombardier/Airbus.

Lewton wrote:

So the airlines that bought the "first generation" CS300/A220 got an inferior product?

Yep. Just like my first generation iPad. Everything gets better, but if you were satisfied with your initial purchase, it shouldn't be an issue.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Now to get production up past 60 per year, right now the backlog is over 6 years. The A220 needs to get past 400 in service to get out of orphan territory, I hope this plane does well.

I keep stating about economy of scale. Not only production, but orders need to increase.

This will be a facinating Paris airshow as the E2-195/A220 competition will be brutal.

Hmmm... Announcement on the tremendous A220-100 range increase right before Paris sales campaigns hit high gear.

Typically, the sales teams and leasing companies establish themselves a month prior to the airshow. It amazes me how much cheaper it is for small airlines to buy everything for new aircraft at Paris than fly to all the vendors. Some of the vendors (seats and galleys) will be set up early. Perhaps not on site.

There is a reason for so many announcements at this time of year. Although, this announcement is a few weeks early. I hope that means an active sales campaigns (or more).

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Hmmm... Announcement on the tremendous A220-100 range increase right before Paris sales campaigns hit high gear. :scratching:

However, I do not believe lack of range has been any of the A220s major issues

Someone83 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Hmmm... Announcement on the tremendous A220-100 range increase right before Paris sales campaigns hit high gear. :scratching:

However, I do not believe lack of range has been any of the A220s major issues

Like firmly answering a question nobody asked I think it offers better range at high payloads, and potentially room for growth.

Someone83 wrote:

However, I do not believe lack of range has been any of the A220s major issues

Do tell....there has been a great deal of pregnant silence around the launch of this model.

Someone83 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Hmmm... Announcement on the tremendous A220-100 range increase right before Paris sales campaigns hit high gear. :scratching:

However, I do not believe lack of range has been any of the A220s major issues

Higher MTOW always sells. It is never given away. The extreame example is the A333. Initial examples have little to no resale value above scrap as payload at range is poor.

For an ULCC looking at the A230, range is certainly already an issue. I calculate maximum pax range of the old -100, at 120 kg per pax including seat, O2 subsystem, life jacket, catering, with only 2330nm of range. 2750nm with this upgrade.

A220-300 with 160 pax I now calculate 3,025nm range. That means taking off, at 105kg pax (people, bag, some catering, but leave the seat) 3 or 4 pax in the summer West coast US to Hawaii and perhaps 15 to 20 in winter.

The A220 also hasn't sold well. Airbus is addressing the barriers to sales. This is cost of production (sustainable sales price, needs volume,), reliability, and payload at range.

I would imagine that this Paris airshow has a huge LCC push. Because of how efficient the A220 is, range drops quickly with increasing payload.

I doubt one customer not flying TATL will buy on the headline range increase. I bet quite a few will on payload at range.

Oh, sell at an increased cost to existing customers. Bonus cash flow! I think JetBlue would use the range. I'll let others debate other airlines.

This is also a big boost over the E2-195. No longer can they claim similar range to the A220-100. For US TCON (my most common flight), this is huge. Winter wind margin.

Lightsaber

It seems to me to be more and more true that the CS300/A220 series is mis-designed. I imagine for *almost* every route and *almost* every user the plane has a significant excess of range. If the plane would have been designed with a lower MGTW, it would have had a less massive structure and therefore be more fuel efficient at the routes it does fly.

Neither Air Baltic nor Delta is going to fly it trans-Atlantic, and if they ever decide to it will be a very few routes compared to the more regional routes that will be it's bread and butter.

The A220 doesn't need the range of a Gulfstream 650; it needs to have better economics that a E-195E2.

So the qiestion is, when is BA/IB placing an order?

Huh, hypothetical situation... Before the A220-100 couldn't go TCON in a mid-density LCC configuration with winter wind margin. The 2.3t just barely gives enough range for a hypothetical LAX or LGB-FLL/JFK/BOS

I dub this hypothetical airline, which would certainly make a 2950nm range with a heavier than base outfitting and payload conditional on orders. For discussion sake, I'll call this airline JetBlue.

Lightsaber

...so does this mean Delta can stop weight restricting short flights like DFW-DTW??? Ridiculous.

Someone83 wrote:

However, I do not believe lack of range has been any of the A220s major issues

I agree.

Adding range to long and thin simply turns it into longer and thin. A bigger problem is that the A220 was built with too much range for ideal short-haul economics. To me this range increase won't make any significant difference in potential orders. What it may do instead is slightly narrow the gap between the potential A225 and the A320N. I wouldn't say that's a good thing if you're selling both models.

lightsaber wrote:

For an ULCC looking at the A230, range is certainly already an issue. I calculate maximum pax range of the old -100, at 120 kg per pax including seat, O2 subsystem, life jacket, catering, with only 2330nm of range. 2750nm with this upgrade.

A220-300 with 160 pax I now calculate 3,025nm range. That means taking off, at 105kg pax (people, bag, some catering, but leave the seat) 3 or 4 pax in the summer West coast US to Hawaii and perhaps 15 to 20 in winter.

Lightsaber

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... r-decision
Spirit Airlines is certainly a possible customer who would greatly appreciate the increased range at higher payload.
They're looking for up to 125 with delivery after 2021, and expect to make a decision mid this year.

AirKevin wrote:

NYCSKYGUY wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Apologies if this has its own thread or there's already a dedicated place for A220 news, but this is quite noteworthy: the A220's MTOW is being boosted by 2.3T, giving a range increase of roughly 450nm for the A221 and A223.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarci ... 090af06454

So MTOW increased, did fuel capacity as well?

With just about every plane I can think of, if you were carrying maximum payload, you couldn't carry maximum fuel and vice versa. Even if the fuel capacity didn't increase, it's still possible that on a given flight, it might be able to carry more fuel without as much of a payload weight restriction.

From what I understand about the DC-8-51, it was volume limited. You could top off the tanks and stuff it full and it would still be within specs. That’s why they were able to build the -61.

I wonder if existing planes can be upgraded to this new MTOW variant.

rrbsztk wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

For an ULCC looking at the A230, range is certainly already an issue. I calculate maximum pax range of the old -100, at 120 kg per pax including seat, O2 subsystem, life jacket, catering, with only 2330nm of range. 2750nm with this upgrade.

A220-300 with 160 pax I now calculate 3,025nm range. That means taking off, at 105kg pax (people, bag, some catering, but leave the seat) 3 or 4 pax in the summer West coast US to Hawaii and perhaps 15 to 20 in winter.

Lightsaber

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... r-decision
Spirit Airlines is certainly a possible customer who would greatly appreciate the increased range at higher payload.
They're looking for up to 125 with delivery after 2021, and expect to make a decision mid this year.

When I look at where/how they fly, this is an upgrade that makes the A220 much more interesting to LCCs.

Everyone else, think about it the opposite. Every added ton of payload costs the A220-300 about 185nm of range. Same with extra diversion fuel, buy on board, or heavier (more padded) seats.

Normally, factory configurations are lighter than in service reality. The A220 was weight limited. The -300 is now volume limited unless max pax. The -100, per my back of the envelope calculations is within one ton of volume limited in a two class configuration.

I see US LCCs wanting the added capability.

To myself, the next few A220 or E2-195 orders will be the most exciting orders of 2019. I know many here watch widebody orders, but for myself, the most interesting orders will be powered by the same Pratt engine.

Lightsaber

trav7778 wrote:

I wonder if existing planes can be upgraded to this new MTOW variant.

Reading this:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... weight?amp

Airbus achieved the performance increase by taking credit of existing structural and systems margins as well as existing fuel volume capacity.

This sounds like a paper excercise. So my first guess is that a check written to Airbus will qualify the operator on a slightly modified maintenance plan.

My question is, what stress levels? This determines upgrading LOV cycles and Hours if validated. Only if validated e.g., paper excercise said the A320 was good for 90,000 Flight Cycles and 180,000 Flight Hours with minor reinforcements. Nope. Testing showed invalid assumptions.

I have seen evidence the A220 is good for far more cycles. The wing is usually the hour limiting feature and CFRP wings are good for far more than 90,000 hours.

Anyone know the current status of A220 fatigue testing?

Lightsaber

Never mind, I see fatigue testing complete and testing for residual strength.
https://www.iabg.de/en/news-events/deta ... 00-fluege/

Note: 3x in lab = 1x certified

So new testing will have to start for a longer life. I'd bet, if a few hundred more sell, that new tests start.

Note that this data supported MTOW increase. I would bet new test sections are built. But at a certified life of 15,000 cycles and about 23,000 hours per year of testing, We are talking about starting an 8+ year effort.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

trav7778 wrote:

I wonder if existing planes can be upgraded to this new MTOW variant.

Reading this:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... weight?amp

Airbus achieved the performance increase by taking credit of existing structural and systems margins as well as existing fuel volume capacity.

This sounds like a paper excercise. So my first guess is that a check written to Airbus will qualify the operator on a slightly modified maintenance plan.

My question is, what stress levels? This determines upgrading LOV cycles and Hours if validated. Only if validated e.g., paper excercise said the A320 was good for 90,000 Flight Cycles and 180,000 Flight Hours with minor reinforcements. Nope. Testing showed invalid assumptions.

I have seen evidence the A220 is good for far more cycles. The wing is usually the hour limiting feature and CFRP wings are good for far more than 90,000 hours.

Anyone know the current status of A220 fatigue testing?

Lightsaber

The current LOV is 60,000 FC/90,000 FH. Hopefully that can be extended to at least 110,000 FH.

Lewton wrote:

So the airlines that bought the "first generation" CS300/A220 got an inferior product?

Sometimes, aircraft with different MTOW have different structural weight/different airport fee/etc., which make it not always desirable to buy the option with highest MTOW if airlines didn't plan to fly the aircraft that far

aemoreira1981 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

trav7778 wrote:

I wonder if existing planes can be upgraded to this new MTOW variant.

Reading this:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... weight?amp

Airbus achieved the performance increase by taking credit of existing structural and systems margins as well as existing fuel volume capacity.

This sounds like a paper excercise. So my first guess is that a check written to Airbus will qualify the operator on a slightly modified maintenance plan.

My question is, what stress levels? This determines upgrading LOV cycles and Hours if validated. Only if validated e.g., paper excercise said the A320 was good for 90,000 Flight Cycles and 180,000 Flight Hours with minor reinforcements. Nope. Testing showed invalid assumptions.

I have seen evidence the A220 is good for far more cycles. The wing is usually the hour limiting feature and CFRP wings are good for far more than 90,000 hours.

Anyone know the current status of A220 fatigue testing?

Lightsaber

The current LOV is 60,000 FC/90,000 FH. Hopefully that can be extended to at least 110,000 FH.

You have me curious, why structurally extend to 110,000? Is that what you think analysis will show?

I believe, a la MD-80, more is available. But with current certification rules, that requires a new set of test specimens.

Lewton wrote:

So the airlines that bought the "first generation" CS300/A220 got an inferior product?

Not really.Looks like extra slack in the design. just a paper change.

The A220-500 being tossed around would surely make for a heck of an efficient aircraft in the 160 seat space and could surely work for a lot of airlines who don’t need the new long ranges of the NEOs, no?

lightsaber wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Hmmm... Announcement on the tremendous A220-100 range increase right before Paris sales campaigns hit high gear. :scratching:

However, I do not believe lack of range has been any of the A220s major issues

Higher MTOW always sells. It is never given away. The extreame example is the A333. Initial examples have little to no resale value above scrap as payload at range is poor.

Off course, it is a positve feature, but the main thing is how to increase production and lower production cost. And getting an engine PIP and some aerodynamic improvements will make the aircraft even more competitive

rrbsztk wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

For an ULCC looking at the A230, range is certainly already an issue. I calculate maximum pax range of the old -100, at 120 kg per pax including seat, O2 subsystem, life jacket, catering, with only 2330nm of range. 2750nm with this upgrade.

A220-300 with 160 pax I now calculate 3,025nm range. That means taking off, at 105kg pax (people, bag, some catering, but leave the seat) 3 or 4 pax in the summer West coast US to Hawaii and perhaps 15 to 20 in winter.

Lightsaber

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... r-decision
Spirit Airlines is certainly a possible customer who would greatly appreciate the increased range at higher payload.
They're looking for up to 125 with delivery after 2021, and expect to make a decision mid this year.

I think the A220 has too much range, and a plane with less range would have less structure and therefore burn less fuel.

Suppose you give Spirit a choice. Slightly lower fuel burn at the existing range, or the longer range. Which do you think Spirit would choose? Remember they have their existing fleet to fly the transcontinental stuff, and long thin routes exist but are rare.

lightsaber wrote:

I have seen evidence the A220 is good for far more cycles. The wing is usually the hour limiting feature and CFRP wings are good for far more than 90,000 hours.

Anyone know the current status of A220 fatigue testing?

Lightsaber

The buttstraps are a bit of a disaster - pretty obvious and its due to being the interface between composite torque box and metallic shroud panels. I believe various fixes have been proposed and are in the works. They also aren't PSEs and they break chordwise - which alleviates the spanwise load causing the problems. So it won't 'zip'.

Few other things but nothing a bit of mild redesign wouldn't fix. Although I'm out of the loop now so don't know how far along rework on those is (if it ever started).

Design Service Goal was 60k FC for DT, but most of what I did or seen was far in excess of this and indeed most of that beat out 10x DSG lives.

fabian9 wrote:

Lewton wrote:

So the airlines that bought the "first generation" CS300/A220 got an inferior product?

This is always the case with everything in life, especially technology. As technology advances previous generations of products will be “inferior”. However if you always wait for the next generation, you will never buy.

It has not hurt the A320 CEO, which is a generation that has lasted 30 years and will likely last a few more. A 30 year old example is still today's technology.