Airbus A320 Aims To Bridge Gap With 737
No 737/CFM56-7BE Technology For A320
One of the key news items at the Dubai Air Show was that of Airbus announcing that “sharklets” or winglets would be available on the A320 family from late 2012.
It marks a major step for the A320 family, having already tested previous winglet designs in two test phases before settling on the sharklet to improve fuel burn and increase operational efficiency. A breadwinner for Airbus, the A320 family has an installed base of circa 4000 jets in operation with over 2400* in the backlog yet to be delivered. The growth opportunities are clear as day for all to see.
“Offered as a forward-fit option, Sharklets are expected to result in at least 3.5 percent reduced fuelburn over longer sectors, corresponding to an annual CO2 reduction of around 700 tonnes per aircraft. The A320 will be the first model fitted with Sharklets, which will be delivered around the end of 2012, to be followed by the other A320 Family models from 2013,“ says Airbus.
Image courtesy of Airbus
Likewise, Boeing had around 2100** unfilled 737 orders and has had the winglet on that family since the turn of the decade. Boeing states that the 737 winglets can reduce fuel burn by up to 4% on missions over 1000nm.
As with many (if not all) air shows, the emphasis is on marketing. Given that the Dubai Air Show 2009 was in itself a much quieter event in all realms of business activity, the marketing teams at Airbus and Boeing certainly had great opportunities to pitch their products.
The interesting point about the new A320 winglet is that Airbus will not be able to be retrofit these to the existing fleet, given that the wingbox and outer wing require additional weight and strengthening to fit the new feature.
Image courtesy of Airbus
Trade studies are underway to see if it can be worked, but at present is an optional feature for newly ordered A320 variants. Previous winglet designs proved too heavy and didn’t provide enough calculable fuel burn benefits to warrant investment.
Crucially, the winglets on the 737 are available to retrofit on existing 737 Classics too, itself another sizeable global fleet and will certainly mean that longevity in the A320 world fleet will be disadvantaged.
The gap between the fuel burn dynamics on the A320 and 737 families will likely widen by 2011 with the introduction of the CFM56-7BE engine (formally known as the Evolution) which aims to deliver up to 2% fuel consumption improvement (with aerodynamic changes). CFM is also using the CFM56-7BE platform to target further efficiencies with PIP upgrades with a view to attaining a 2% or more cut in fuel burn from the engine alone, however it has no plans to offer the same on the A320 engines as of yet.
“Continuous innovation is a mantra for the Next-Generation 737 program. Whether we’re improving our tools and processes or our airplanes for our airlines, operators and owners, we continually strive to take it to the next level. We categorize innovation in three areas, improving performance, comfort and navigation.
We began this process just a few years after we introduced the Next-Generation 737 family with innovations such as blended winglets, Head-up display, GPS landing system and the Electronic Flight Bag, CFM’s Tech Insertion and carbon brakes — to name a few — and we’re continuing well into the future. This year, we introduced the 737 Boeing Sky Interior for delivery in late 2010 and a package of airframe and engine performance improvements to reduce fuel consumption by two percent by 2011,” says Boeing spokeswoman Vicki Ray.
Of course there’s an argument to be made that sole source operators of each family in low cost airlines, as well as mixed family operators like Turkish Airlines, for example, see a huge benefit to the both the A320 and 737 families – mission specific requirements mean that there’s very little to separate the two families.
In his briefing last week, Boeing’s VP Marketing, Randy Tinseth remarked about the A320 winglet by asking “why has it taken Airbus so long [to develop these winglets]?”
He has a salient point – one that, in part refers back to the decision Boeing undertook the decision to redesign the 737 wing for the Next Generation family in late 1993 that allowed for growth, increased operating weights and aerodynamic design enhancements, such as winglets.
Image courtesy of Aviation Partners Boeing
To date, the A320 has not had the benefit of an updated wing and has been part of the reason why, until the Dubai announcement, Airbus had difficulty in closing the business case and viability of the application on the A320 family.
With Airbus equally hesitant about committing to the Pratt & Whitney GTF engine, the new winglets will certainly close the gap on the 737 family in terms of fuel burn and performance. The GTF has yet to demonstrate tangible benefits that Pratt & Whitney claim that can be achieved and after the difficulties faced with the PW6000 on the A318, Airbus is prudently not rushing to re-engine its best-selling airplane just yet.
Recent musings of Airbus wanting engine maker IAE to also step into the foray points to the company not being happy to run with a sole powerplant on its narrowbody family, although by the same token, this method hasn’t stifled 737 sales.
But with the two key models, the A320 and 737-800 with the biggest backlogs, Airbus has yet to make a move to addressing the engine performance improvements that the 737 will soon enjoy. With the 737-800 topping the investor’s poll at Air Finance Journal since 2003 as well as being able to fly faster with better operating costs and lower fuel burn, the A320 will have to make more of a splash between now and whenever its successor arrives if it aims to bridge the gap.
The sharklets are a step in the right direction, but one that was overdue and bizarrely isolates existing operators.
*As at October 31, 2009 based on information at Airbus.com
**As at October 2009 based on information at Boeing.com
What’s the level of competition – about a 47/53 percentage split? Just over 2.00 basis points to Airbus. From commentary, it appears that Boeing has a slight economy advantage coupled with a slight maintenance advantage. Airbus has a slight cost advantage. They’re both constantly improving their respective product, so the natural conclusion is the status quo remains.
That engine nacelle ground clearance limitation is only a limitation on the weak.
If Airbus gets the P&W GTF – and that’s an expensive option, it will open the door for Boeing’s engine partner to do its bit – you know, they’ll have a bit more margin to spend some cash. We’ll have to see how far this goes.
51. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | November 29th, 2009 at 19:50
well, I completely agree with the rest of your post, but the engine nacelle thing is a fundamental thermal dynamics limitation on the 737 engine performance – of course it allows for a shorter and lighter landing gear…
as a favorite celebrity back home once said – every downside has an upside!
I believe Airbus build about 6 more A32x per month than Boeing do the 73x.
Does anyone have any figures on the number of man hours each manufacturer employs to get a unit through the door?
It would be one way of getting a meaningful comparison.
The last line of the article >> The sharklets are a step in the right direction, but one that was overdue and bizarrely isolates existing operators.<<
They do not “isolate existing operators” any more than the 777-300ER isolated 777 classic operators, or indeed any more than 747-400 isolated 747-200 operators.
As for the suggestion on the above article that there will be no aerodynamic device retrofits for existing A320 family operators, I recommend a revisit of exactly what John Leahy said on that topic at the press conference in Dubai. (and he addressed that subject quite clearly:-
Q: Geoff Thomas Air Transport World:
Refitting of the A320 / A321 fleet, what plans have you got for putting fins on those?
A: John Leahy:
We’re looking at that right now. The Sharklet is not that easy to retrofit. It’s an all-new design built into a new-build airplane. We do understand that we’ll have quite a few [A320 Family] aircraft already out there by the time this aircraft enters service in about 2013 or so — probably in the neighborhood of about 5,000 [A320 Family] aircraft [in operation by then]. So we are looking at what can be done. We are talking to Aviation Partners – the same people who work with Boeing on an older design [i.e. APB’s “Blended Winglet”], but something that still could help. We are [also] looking internally at what we could do. But this Sharklet is optimized for a new-build airplane”.
Dave_BC
As an Airbus engineer (A380, not A320), the A320 will not be retrofitted with the new sharklet so yes, the author is correct in this article.
APB will work with Airbus to see if the sharklet can be adapted to fit older A320 jets as well as another “internal only” winglet for the older A320s.
But since this is designed for new-build A320s, do not hold out much expectation that this sharklet or any other such wing tip device will find a way on to the existing A320s in operation today.
Hope that helps.
To “Private”:
What you say doesn’t quite correspond to what Leahy is quoted as saying in Dubai (in my previous post above). What JL actually implies is that anything that Airbus might be in discussion with APB about would *** not *** have anything to do with Airbus’ own “Sharklets”, but rather, such discussions would explore whether APB’s own older “Blended Winglet” design could be applied for older A320 Family aircraft as a retrofit.
Dave_BC
Take a look at this:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_airshow.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/DBSHARK111509.xml&show=dubai2009
“Airbus is still working on a retrofit option for the A320 for winglets, but it will not be the sharklets, Leahy said. The aircraft maker is looking at its own design, but also talking to Aviation Partners, which may also be involved in building the sharklets.”
Airbus is not working with Aviation Partners for a blended solution (specifically) although it may well be that sort of concept or another design. The sharklets are also included in the design/discussions between the parties.
I submit that if Airbus is not successful in retrofitting the “sharklets” to older A320s, it will have an adverse impact on the resale value of those aircraft. I have read nothing in all these comments that leads me to believe otherwise. How would airbus deal with the buyers remorse from these customers? Offer them free “sharklets” on the next A320 purchase?
To “Private”, you wrote:
>> Airbus is not working with Aviation Partners for a blended solution (specifically) although it may well be that sort of concept or another design. The sharklets are also included in the design/discussions between the parties.<<
I don’t know about you, but I was standing just a few feet away from John Leahy with the other media present at the press conference, and I recorded exactly what was said there. An excerpt of that recording I have already reproduced above. Please read it again.
I am not sure quite whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. For what it’s worth, here is a summary of what we know:-
1. A320 Family Forward fit:-
~ solution: “Sharklets”
~ design owner: Airbus
~ manufacturer of the Sharklet – not decided yet (there are various providers e.g. including RUAG responsible for design/build of A350 curved winglet etc., and also for production of A320 & A380 wingtip ‘fences’).
Note that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that API would be involved in manufacture of Airbus proprietary Sharklet! (Also note that Aviation Partners subcontracts-out physical production of its own Winglet product to FACC.)
http://www.facc.at/en/aktuelles/presse_detail.asp?id=59&titel=FACC_wins_order_from_Aviation_Partners_Boeing_for_the_manufacture_of_Blended_Winglets_for_Boeing_airplanes
2. A320 Family Retrofit:-
~ current stage: feasibility study
~ design solution: not decided;
~ what it WON’T be: “Sharklet”;
~ what it COULD be: (a) either an in-house Airbus design; or (b) an external design (e.g. API Blended Winglet);
~ who would implement the retrofits? Not decided yet
I trust this discussion is now closed.
Cheers.
What is the different in term of hydraulic between A320 and B737? which one is better cost and performance?