Update – Airbus lndustrie A320 Stretch

The Stretch will achieve its 22. 7ft (7m) extra length via the addition of two fuselage plugs situated immediately fore and aft of the wing. While this will increase typical seating capacity by some 24%, the real winner will be underfloor freight capacity which increases by just over 40% due to the volumetric stretch being totally in the area free of wing carry through box structure, etc. In an era of rapidly expanding air freight demand, this latter fact could prove to be a big revenue enhancer for operators of the latest from Airbus.

Airbus are also stressing that this project represents a minimum change development of the basic A320. Apart from the two fuselage plugs, the only other mods required are an uprated landing gear, structural reinforcement of existing structures, a modified wing trailing edge featuring double slotted flaps, adapted systems, two additional overwing exits and more powerful engines. As to the latter, both CFM and International Aero Engines have powerplants that will be specifically optimised for the new Airbus. CFM will offer a derated 28,000/29,000lb thrust version of their CFM56-5 which will eventually power the four engine ultra long-range A340, while IAE launched their V2500-A5 of 28,000lb thrust during May as the candidate powerplant for both the A320 Stretch and, if launched, McDonnell Douglas’ turbofan powered MD-91.

IAE, like Airbus, foresee a potential market for at least 2,500 jetliners in the 150-180 seat market through the coming fifteen to twenty years. This is a market that presently the standard fuselage A320 is a little small for (as is the competing MD-88 and 737-400) while the Boeing 757 is generally considered too large to be applicable for what is essentially perceived as a 727 replacement market.

For the future this market is being addressed only by the A320 Stretch and, if launched, the UDF or turbofan version of the MD-91, which itself is essentially a stretched and re-engined MD-88. Boeing were in the race with their pioneering 7J7 but wisely placed the programme on hold last year so as to be able to better address their own internal problems associated with a current model order book that is now approaching 3,000 airframes through to the mid nineties at monthly production rates undreamt of just a half dozen years ago. Boeing however may well reactivate the 7J7 programme in a few years time, if and when UDF technology is proven, but by this time Airbus will have the Stretch in service and conservatively destined to carry the liveries of most of the two dozen airlines that already have chosen the European twinjet.

McDonnell Douglas on the other hand are perfectly placed to launch either variant of their existing MD-80 whenever they feel ready. The problem for MDC, however, is that they are presently short of skilled manpower (as is virtually everybody) and are having trouble coping with present day demand for the hot selling MD-80 in addition to trying to bring the MD-11 trijet through certification and into full-scale production from relatively space limited facilities at Long Beach. MDC are also committed to the USAF C-17 airlifter and production of the T-45 Goshawk for the US Navy, both projects that will soak up much of their technical and manpower resources in the years ahead. An eventual launch of the MD-91 though will provide Airbus with the only viable competitor for the 150-180 seat market that it is likely to see in airline service prior to the turn of the century.

First flight of the A320 Stretch is presently scheduled for April 1993 with certification planned for the end of that year for an entry to service in the beginning of 1994. These schedules may well slip as the certification period does appear to be unusually tight though even the bleakest Al contingency plan has the aircraft in airline service by the end of the first quarter of 1995. At that time fuel prices may well be significantly different to what they are today (in constant non-inflationary dollars) and the requirement for a larger A320 might well be the product that the world’s short to medium haulers are desperately seeking at that time.

In fuel burn per seat terms over a 500nm sector in mixed configuration seating, Al claim that their A320 Stretch will consume some 40% less fuel than an MD-88, 9% less than a 757, 21% less than a 737-400 and 7% less than the standard fuselage A320-200. While manufacturers will always argue about the validity of their competitor’s data, these figures do show at least the fuel savings that can be had by mixing a combination of the latest in technology with a greater passenger capacity, indeed something that the Boeing 757 has been demonstrating to airline operators for more than a half decade service.

That Airbus lndustrie would ultimately bend to market pressure and launch a stretched version of what is civil aviation’s most successful new airliner was inevitable (based on the number of firm sales prior to entry to service). It’s long-term implications to the ultimate success of the European consortium though will be felt long after the first of the breed takes wing. Indeed, the A320 and its eventual derivatives will, like its North American competitors, be with us for many decades to come.