mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 24, 2018 11:25:26 GMT 1
And once more - they are weight limited. So what? The A321LR was introduced to fly about 170 passengers 4,000 nm. The A321XLR should have a lower OEW due to not needing ACTs for the larger fuel volume than the A321LR with 3 ACT. So additional fuel compared to the LR with the same payload. What is the weight of an empty ACT, 500 KG? So it adds perhaps 500 kg to bring the internal fuel to 36 m3. That gives you at least a metric ton of extra fuel at the same payload, perhaps more.
|
|
|
Post by bmw801 on Oct 17, 2018 19:38:41 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Nov 14, 2018 20:56:25 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Nov 15, 2018 10:08:12 GMT 1
Still no clue about the tanks ... Are we talking about a wingbox tank, or is Airbus designing a built-in fuselage tank to replace the ACTs and increase their capacity ?
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Nov 15, 2018 12:11:03 GMT 1
Still no clue about the tanks ... Are we talking about a wingbox tank, or is Airbus designing a built-in fuselage tank to replace the ACTs and increase their capacity ? I would assume both and perhaps a look at the tailplane or elevator. There was talk about unused volume near the center tank and possibility of increasing the center tank volume. Any unused volume near the tanks.
|
|
|
Post by bmw801 on Nov 21, 2018 20:18:06 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Nov 22, 2018 0:59:22 GMT 1
This subject is also being discussed in the 'A350 future development' thread, where Kronus posted the following link. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/airbus-reveals-plans-for-all-new-narrow-body-re-engined-a350I duplicate here my own post, in reply to Baroque's : There is othing surprising in the assertion that Airbus has been considering its narrowbody options, and that a new design is one of them, though not the most likely in my opinion. An A350neo in 2025, however, would happen much earlier than anticipated. I think Airbus is trying to elicit FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) among Boeing's decision makers. For Airbus, any delay in the 797 launch decision would be beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Nov 22, 2018 1:15:59 GMT 1
I think Airbus is trying to elicit FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) among Boeing's decision makers. For Airbus, any delay in the 797 launch decision would be beneficial. Aviation journalist John Ostrower shares the same view
|
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,232
|
Post by someone on Nov 22, 2018 13:36:12 GMT 1
This subject is also being discussed in the 'A350 future development' thread, where Kronus posted the following link. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/airbus-reveals-plans-for-all-new-narrow-body-re-engined-a350I duplicate here my own post, in reply to Baroque's : There is othing surprising in the assertion that Airbus has been considering its narrowbody options, and that a new design is one of them, though not the most likely in my opinion. An A350neo in 2025, however, would happen much earlier than anticipated. I think Airbus is trying to elicit FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) among Boeing's decision makers. For Airbus, any delay in the 797 launch decision would be beneficial. Why the hell, do they call it A350neo, when it is not an A350 at all? This aircraft [concept] is a brand new aircraft. Probably the «A360»
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Nov 22, 2018 13:55:24 GMT 1
Why the hell, do they call it A350neo, when it is not an A350 at all? This aircraft [concept] is a brand new aircraft. Probably the «A360» Well, they define it as "a revamped version of [Airbus'] latest A350 wide-body", and state that it would receive new engines, the question being whether Rolls-Royce would remain the sole engine supplier..
|
|