Aspire Aviaton has a long article comparing the A320neo and the B737MAX. Although the main conclusion (Quote: "At the end of the day, Aspire Aviation predicts a balanced narrowbody market equally split between the Airbus A320neo and Boeing 737 MAX.") seems right to me, there are a few detail which I would like to clarify or correct:
- OEW difference between A320 and B737-800 as of today: the best way to get the right answer is to ask an airline which operates both aircraft. Turkish Airlines is one of them and they have an open website with weight & balance sheets. In these sheets you can see the exact OEW of every aircraft in their fleet. I extracted them and compared the A320 and the B737-800W. It looks like the B737-800 is about 1000kg lighter than the A320 - although there are some very light A320 aircraft and some rather heavy B737-800W frames.
- The OEW increase for the A320neo: in fact, a Flightglobal article from 2011 states that the PW1100G equipped would gain 1.8t in weight vs. the LEAP-1A powered A320neo being 1.7t heavier than today's A320. But that was before CFM decided to add a 7th stage in the LPT and to enlarge the fan diameter from 75" to 78", as the early SFC was not competitive with the PW offering. So we can expect that the LEAP-1A powered version will be at least as heavy as the GTF powered A320neo. I heard some time ago that the LEAP-1A would be even heavier than the GTF and that the long LPT of the LEAP-1A could pose a problem for the wing as the center of gravity moves forward of the wing.
- There is one thing I do not understand about the range increase of the B737MAX-8 and B737MAX-9. According to Boeing it will be 3,620nm for the -8 and 3595nm for the -9. This is 540nm or 17.5% for for the -8 and 17.7% more for the -9. With the fuel tank volume unchanged as Aspire Aviation reports and fuel efficiency better by "only" 13% compared to the respective NG models - there is a miracle happening inflight...
- On the other hand, Airbus says that the A320ceo with Sharklets will have a range of 3,300nm. As the efficiency of the Shaklets should be well known by now, I assume that this number is correct. If we now add 12% efficiency for the neo coming from the engines, the A320neo should have a range of about 3,700nm - close to the 3,760nm that Airbus revealed to Leeham News. The 3,510nm from Aspire Aviation seems to be too low.
- There is an obvious typing error (typing error is corrected now!) when Aspire Aviation says that Boeing asserts that the B737MAX-8 would be 2,200lbs lower in OEW per seat. But given that we already saw that the current A320 is 1,000kg/2,200lbs heavier than the B737-800W and the B737MAX-8 will gain more in OEW than the A320neo (3,750lbs vs. 5,500lbs), the difference in OEW per seat will be much lower than before.
- Aspire Aviation states that both airframer rejected the VAFN. This is true for Boeing, as the lower bypass ratio and therefore higher Fan Pressure Ratio means that a VAFN would not have a real benefit. But the PW1100G will have a VAFN, although Airbus rejected a VAFN for use on the LEAP-1A.
Boeing now claims a 10% lower OEW per seat advantage for the B737-800 relative to the A320. But when one calculates the OEW per seat (most of the Turkish Airlines A320 have 159 seats, most of the 737-800W's have 165 seats), there is a difference of "just" about 6.5% (273kg/seat vs. 257kg/seat). Boeing's claim was against 150 seats in the A320 and 162 seats in the B737-800W.
Both aircraft are still in development. How they will perform when they are in service cannot really predicted today. Too much hinges on how the engine OEM's can stick to their claims and predictions.
But - as I said before - the main conclusion will be that there will be an evenly split market between the big two. The real interesting question (for me at least) is, how much of the cake the newcomers like Bombardier with their CSeries, COMAC with the C919 and Irkut with the MS-21 will get in the long run.
Thank you
ReplyDeleteMight be interesting in digging further at THY cause last 737-800 is 400 kg heavier than A320 with only 1 more seat..
At this point OWE increase in NEO is 1000-1500 less than MAX (6-9 lbs/ seat) narrowing the gap between the 2 contenders
A for MAX ranges, I had the vey same questions and found some answers here
http://avia.superforum.fr/t1235p80-neo-vs-max#32056
Have a good day
Excellent analysis !
ReplyDeleteWho is the Author here ??
Mr Daniel Chang has to be more cautious and somewhat better documented...
Rensim
Boeing shows the increased range of the 9 MAX with one Aux tank in the Farnborough presentation.
ReplyDeleteThis should be the only possible solution - also for the 8 MAX.
DeleteAny way to link given weights to build/delivery dates?
ReplyDelete( The last ACAPS for the A320 that had OEW info shew weight comparable to 737NG-800 available data )
Uwe, the documents from Turkish Airlines include the serial numbers and the registration. I wrote all weights into an excel file and I think the dataset were chronologically. In the chart you can see that the OEW of the A320 decreased a little bit over time where the B737-800 OEW is rather constant over the delivered airframes (except the last three).
DeleteI'm trying to figure out if there is some weight increase in 737NG with Sky Interior ? Or due du IFE ?
DeleteLast figures taken from THY are surprising
ATP, so there is a pronounced difference in seating capacity for the last 4 A320 frames?
Delete( 1t lighter OEW but plus ~10kg/seat )
APJ, IMU the most redeeming value ( for airlines that is ) of the sky interior is reduced weight, everything else metioned is fluff for the unwashed. Gains eaten up or even negated by IFE probably.
Last frames have just 150 seats. Reduces empty weight but ups empty weight per seat. Maybe they have a new, lighter interior on there...
DeleteThere is one thing I do not understand about the range increase of the B737MAX-8 and B737MAX-9. According to Boeing it will be 3,620nm for the -8 and 3595nm for the -9. This is 540nm or 17.5% for for the -8 and 17.7% more for the -9. With the fuel tank volume unchanged as Aspire Aviation reports and fuel efficiency better by "only" 13% compared to the respective NG models - there is a miracle happening inflight.
ReplyDeleteI guess it is because the MTOW increases by 7,000 lbs. One part of the MTOW increase is to compensate the weight increase and another part (about 1,500 lbs) is to increase the range.
It is still unclear what the takeoff thrust rating will be for the MAX8 and MAX9.
The Apire Aviation article stated though that there is no additional fuel tank to "use" these 1500lbs. But as Scott Hamilton wrote in his comment, at least the -9 has an additional fuel tank. A rough calculation showed that 1500lbs of fuel is worth around 130nm. The remaining 540-130=410nm is about 13% of the current range - and fits to the efficiency gain advertised by Boeing.
DeletePerhaps only the MAX9 needs an aux tank to achieve the advertized range. Since the MAX8's wing is slightly bigger than the A320's wings maybe there is some volume left to take an extra 1,500 lbs of fuel.
DeleteIn any case, since the firm configuration will only be achieved in late 2013, we cannot make a firm conclusion.
I am still waiting impatiently for the takeoff thrust level for the different variant and also about the tail bumper on the MAX8. I really want to know how much TOW improvement is achieved with the new max pitch attitude (thanks to the bumper).
If indeed Boeing can achieve the promise on the MAX8 then it is a damn good airplane.
V V (have been "anonymous" in the comment above)
Aeroturbopower,
DeleteI checked again the numbers using Boeing's aircraft characteristics for airport planning. You are right, there is something about the Maximum Fuel Capacity. I can't examine exactly what the point is because I don't have better data than the above mentioned document.
I do not think that they are modifying the wings, but who knows? I see two items of doubts:
1. the announced OWE increase of more than 5,000 lbs seems to be quite high
2. the max fuel capacity limit should have been active if there is no change.
It looks like we have to wait until late 2013 before we know what the MAX is or isn't.
V V
Didn't Boeing say something about avoiding the dry bay above the MAX's engine?
DeleteDoes the 737NG have a dry bay above the engine?
If the answer is yes for the above questions then the next question is what's the total volume of the dry bay.
The answer to the above questions may explain the extra fuel volume.
V V
V V,
Deleteexactly as you say, I think we have to wait until we know what the MAX is or will be. To say it in your words, "Boeing launched the MAX prematurely" - to keep AA as a customer, without having a full technical plan how to execute the MAX. Now Boeing has to work around the limited design space they have.
Regards,
aeroturbopower
Boeing is using 1 AUX tank with 737-9 as standard for comparison sake (idem for A321 if I remember, but just one of the two usually possible)
ReplyDeleteAs Scott Hamilton mentionned.
And compares the A320/A319/737-7/737-8 without aux tank
That's why numbers are a little but odd
Looking at seating capacity using seat guru, Turkish a320s are listed at 143 seats in 2 class configuration; 737-8s are listed at 155 seats.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at all seat configurations for all airlines for 320s vs 737-8s it comes out something like this:
320 737-8
1 class n=16 171.6 n=10 184.4 12.8 difference
2 class n=34 148.4 n=29 157.0 8.6 difference
3 class n=5 144.6 n=1 154.0 9.4 seats more
For the airlines that fly both:
2 class Turkish 143 vs 155 12 seats
1 class AirBerlin 174 vs 186 12 seats
2 class Air China 158 vs 167 9 seats
Marketing will do what they do...
Are the new Turkish a320s now 153 seats?
I do not know who keeps seatguru's data up to date, but I would trust the airline's own data more. The Turkish Airlines website states 150 and 159 seats for the A320 and 155/165/177/189 for the B737-800.
DeleteThe latest A320 still have 150 seats - I do not know when the flex space option with the 3 extra seats will be available nor if Turkish Airlines opted for that option. And I don't think that this is really important as I used the OEW to show that there is something not adding up to Boeing's claims of OEW and Aspire's original statement that the ranges of the -MAX8 and -MAX9 can be achieved without adding a fuel tank.
As I said at the beginning, I don't care about marketing - the customer will tell you the truth.