Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4513 times:
I don't think there are any external differences like that. If the 200 were longer, it probably would have been called the A322; if it were shorter, it would probably be called the A320 (Hey, wait...). If I recall correctly (but I'm too lazy to check at the moment), the only major difference is the increased range, and the extra fuel capacity (and consequent weight inrease) that goes along with it. Are the engines more powerful?
MightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4481 times:
The A321-200 is an extended range version of the -100: It features higher thrust versions of the -100 engines and an additional centre fuel tank (ACT - Capacity: 2,900 litres) increasing the range by 350 Nm.
A321-100 - MTOW: 83,000 kg (or 85,000 kg optional)
A321-200 - MTOW: 89,000 kg
As for capacity, the -100 and -200 are 100% identical and accomodate 185 passengers in a typical 2-class layout or 200 in an all-economy configuration.