tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: More range for A321LR?

Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:41 pm

parapente wrote:
Btw did the article suggest where they could stuff any more fuel?Cant think where without major changes.

Somewhere in the centre section by the sound of it. Anyone know their way around the belly of an A320? Just need to find a tidy void that can take another tonne or two of fuel. Without shifting pressure bulkheads or redesigning the gear... :blockhead:
 
astuteman
Posts: 6625
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:11 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
astuteman wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The empty weight of the aux fuel tanks is pretty minimal. Roughly 500lbs per tank on most commercial aircraft


Bear in mind that the Airbus ACT's hold 2.3t of fuel whereas the Boeing ACT's hold about 1.5t. The A320 ACT's are about 400kg each dry, but there is also another 200kg of "stuff" to go in. Hence each ACT adds 600kg to an A321, and 3 will add 1.8 tonnes.

This Leeham article explains

https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbu ... ats-there/

Rgds




I didn't know that, thanks. I have read most aux fuel tanks empty weight is roughly 500-550 lbs. If Airbus aux tanks hold almost a ton more fuel than Boeing the 800 kg empty weight figure makes sense.


No worries. But it does point out the extent of the trade-offs that Airbus have made with the LR compared to the "operational optimum". 1.8t of "dead" OEW is a huge amount of "dead" weight for a narrowbody to haul around. Not ideal. Just quick, easy and "standard" :)

Rgds
 
WIederling
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:12 pm

tealnz wrote:
parapente wrote:
Btw did the article suggest where they could stuff any more fuel?Cant think where without major changes.

Somewhere in the centre section by the sound of it. Anyone know their way around the belly of an A320? Just need to find a tidy void that can take another tonne or two of fuel. Without shifting pressure bulkheads or redesigning the gear... :blockhead:


good luck searching.

Only way to go would be for conformal tankage expanding the belly fairing?
Murphy is an optimist
 
parapente
Posts: 1946
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:25 am

When the NEO concept was launched there were various diagrams showing the areas that could be addressed.One (which they did not do) was changing the wing body fairing area(they wanted to keep costs to a min).So yes I guess they couldrelook at this area.Perhaps along with. Their new carbon wing box section.But costs would escalate quite rapidly.
Starts becoming new wine in old bottles.
I can fully understand the need to find 200-300 more nm but needs to be done cheaply if poss'.
 
r2rho
Posts: 2849
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:24 pm

The A321 is fuel-volume limited. No increase in range can be achieved without either
- adding fuel volume or
- decreasing fuel consumption

The A321NEOLR MTOW increase enables the increase in volume making the necessary ACT's possible without a big payload hit. The planned PIP for 2019 will improve fuel efficiency a bit. I don't see any viable means to add more volume beyond what is planned for LR... fuel economy can always improve by little bits but don't expect any leaps...
Ultimately, the A321LR will be where the A320 family MAXes out :wink2: , at least for the MoM role. Anything beyond, will require a new wing or other major changes.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: More range for A321LR?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:37 am

The wing is still the Achilles heel no matter how you spin it. The only way an enhanced A321LR is going to work is if OEW drops by at least 5000 lbs and takeoff weight remains the same. That ain't gonna happen.

They need to sack up and build a proper 322
 
parapente
Posts: 1946
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:07 am

This is about timing (and costs).Itsnot as if Airbus can't work out what a perfect '322' might be any more than Boeing. can work out a 'derivative ' 779 looks like,(not so different).The difference is the LR is due to fly next year and cost v little , (which is passed on to customer).
No the LR wing is not perfect.But in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!
 
WIederling
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:17 am

parapente wrote:
No the LR wing is not perfect.But in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!


Airbus has done a proof of technology single piece carbon center wing box for an A320 size airframe.
http://compositesmanufacturingmagazine. ... -wing-box/
https://www.airinsight.com/airbus-new-s ... -wing-box/

could this be used as a 1:1 replacement for the existing one to be fitted with the regular wings and
going forward a beefed up version that would allow attaching longer span carbon wings.

Not clear from the announcements.
( or nothing more than detail solutions for a next gen narrow body? )
Murphy is an optimist
 
Bambel
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:35 pm

A few years ago Airbus was talking about a "Neo plus" or SAID-program (single aisle incremental development).

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... grade-plan

Could this reduce the empty weight? A high pressure hydraulic system and more electro-hydraulic backup should be lighter?

b.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7295
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:38 pm

BrianDromey wrote:
My understanding is that the AFC version ( 2 x doors, 2 overwings, one type B door) is required to take capacity to 240, so I think AFC will be required for LR and high density versions.

Yes. AFC is lighter than the old (current) door layout and allows for more flexible premium cabins so it is standard on the LR, and of course needed if you want 240 seats versus 230. Right now Airbus is offering both to airlines (who don't need the 240 seats or are not getting the LR) but I believe the long term intention is to convert fully to the AFC layout (probably by slowly raising price of current door layout option to the stratosphere).

parapente wrote:
The 'sweet spot' for MOM according to published sources is indeed 200-240 (some however say higher).But of course (one class) 200-240 is exactly where the A321NEO is.indeed the LR is suggested to carry circa 210 in 2 class.Overall fractionally bigger than a 752 and about the same as a 762.

If you put too many seats into the A321LR you start running into baggage limitations, it is already getting tight with ~200 seats (again on the LR). The A321LR also needs a new wing to move fuel capacity from the cargo bay into the wing freeing up space for bags, in addition to all the other advantages the wing would bring.
 
Flow2706
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:20 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:58 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
Does the LR incorporate a tail tank?

Not sure (if don't think so however), but if they do it will most likely just be to hold additional fuel not a trim tank (as on A330). Contrary to most other aircraft types, on A320 Series aircraft CG position has a negligible effect on fuel economy (due to "complex aerodynamic reasons" according to Airbus), apparently a slightly more forward CG is actually marginally better (this is what Airbus is saying about A320 CEO series, but considering that the only change are the engines if will probably still be true for the NEO).
 
parapente
Posts: 1946
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:15 am

Thx for links above-very interesting.Particularly to note how far back these'plus' decisions were taken.Sadly it does seem that the Carbon centre box was simply created for future aircraft rather than the A320 family -but you never know.
Seems Boeing have settled on 250-270 pax /5-5.5knm for the mom which is of course outside the 321neo size at any range /config.
Guess Airbus should just 'do their own thing' regarding the existing model.The more range they can extract (whether it be a LR-Standard-or1/2 ACT's) the better.
Simply gives them a more attractive product whether you are flying 200 pax 4knm or 240 pax 3knm.
I personally still feel their original A322 simple stretch proposal from 15 years ago would be worth dusting down again.Cant help feeling a 'simple' 250 seater one class (29" pitch?) would find interest amongst buyers.(or indeed 230 pax in 2 class).Would cover the shorter range 767 type journeys quite well with enormous efficiencies.35%< sfc?
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:52 am

parapente wrote:
Seems Boeing have settled on 250-270 pax /5-5.5knm for the mom which is of course outside the 321neo size at any range /config.


That's true of the current A320 series, but by the time a MOM comes along, in what 8 to 10 years, the Airbus response might be very different. I can see a stretched and rewinged A322 getting close to those capabilities.
 
Taxi645
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:09 pm

So what are we talking here? Some 1-2% from the wingtips (scimitar style, to provide more effective wingspan within the 36m as with the MAX?) and 3% from an engine PIP turns 4.100Nm into 4.300Nm by 2019?
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:09 pm

I think the engine pip is already factored into the LR.
 
Taxi645
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:26 am

kurtverbose wrote:
I think the engine pip is already factored into the LR.


Hmm, curious what the scope for improvement will then.
 
parapente
Posts: 1946
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: More range for A321LR?

Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:39 am

Well that is really the point Taxi.Everyone here has tried but no one knows where the hell they find either room or efficiency.
Yup I believe that the 2019 engine pip was indeed factored into the LR.Certainly 1-2(max)% could be found by adding 'downlets' to the BW a la 380 plus example.
This would be worthwhile doing as it would improve the whole family of aircraft.
One returns to the prototype carbon box section.Could that be made 'production ready'? Possible but I don't think that was the original reason.I think it was a proof of concept and had more to do with reducing future manufacturing costs.
But if they did do this then yes they could most likely create additional fuel space and trade it for the weight saved by going carbon.

However one should bear in mind that a 'LR' is not just about tatl.It will be a useful addition everywhere.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balerit, steman and 26 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos