|
|
Post by fanairbus on Nov 12, 2015 10:23:53 GMT 1
Right on schedule!  What is the schedule for first flight of the A321 neo please? Does anybody know? Things seem to be very quiet - no internal news? |
|
henge
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 346
|
Post by henge on Nov 12, 2015 10:26:05 GMT 1
Isn't the A321 already at the limit in terms of length? I thought I read somewhere that it has some limitations about rotation at take-off to avoid tailstrike. That problem will get even worse when you start stretching the A321 without fundamental modifications to the entire frame...
|
|
|
|
A321neo
Nov 12, 2015 11:35:10 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on Nov 12, 2015 11:35:10 GMT 1
Isn't the A321 already at the limit in terms of length? I thought I read somewhere that it has some limitations about rotation at take-off to avoid tailstrike. That problem will get even worse when you start stretching the A321 without fundamental modifications to the entire frame... Is there not software now being used to prevent tail strikes on take off ? I read about an aircraft type having the skid block removed to save weight and a software fix instead. Small stretch behind wings and a larger one up front ? |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Nov 12, 2015 13:21:59 GMT 1
Isn't the A321 already at the limit in terms of length? I thought I read somewhere that it has some limitations about rotation at take-off to avoid tailstrike. That problem will get even worse when you start stretching the A321 without fundamental modifications to the entire frame... Is there not software now being used to prevent tail strikes on take off ? I read about an aircraft type having the skid block removed to save weight and a software fix instead. Yes, that is being done on the 777s aviationweek.com/advanced-machines-aerospace-manufacturing/boeing-rolls-out-777-upgrade-planSmall stretch behind wings and a larger one up front ? Might be possible although you'd be running into centre of gravity problems if the difference is too big. |
|
|
|
A321neo
Nov 12, 2015 14:22:52 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on Nov 12, 2015 14:22:52 GMT 1
How about 3 feet rear and 6 feet up front (what's the simple length / frame ?), then put a fuel tank in the fuselage just behind the wings for balance ?
|
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Nov 12, 2015 15:08:22 GMT 1
The wing of the A321 is not good for another stretch or weight increase. While the A321neo looks like a winner versus the big MAX versions it will need another new design to go above it.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Nov 12, 2015 15:11:35 GMT 1
A new wing is fine.
If Boeing is going to invest $15 billion into a new narrow body program, Airbus for sure will have no problem investing ~ $5 billion into a new wing.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Nov 12, 2015 18:55:09 GMT 1
How about 3 feet rear and 6 feet up front (what's the simple length / frame ?), then put a fuel tank in the fuselage just behind the wings for balance ? It sounds so simple ... |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Nov 12, 2015 20:00:58 GMT 1
How about 3 feet rear and 6 feet up front (what's the simple length / frame ?), then put a fuel tank in the fuselage just behind the wings for balance ? It sounds so simple ... I meant what's the simplest standard length for an extension ? Eg the length between the ribs or what ever they are called ! Not that it was simple to do  |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Nov 13, 2015 12:17:09 GMT 1
How about 3 feet rear and 6 feet up front (what's the simple length / frame ?), then put a fuel tank in the fuselage just behind the wings for balance ? Unfortunately I just don't have the technical knowledge to say whether it'd work or not!. I did a bit of a google search though and found these which you might find interesting.  and here's another similar diagram in the link |
|
