Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A321 Popularity And Enhancements  
User currently onlinecjpmaestro From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 70 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16325 times:

I just noticed on US Airways fact sheet that they now have more A321 aircraft than A320 (75 vs. 72). It wasn't too long ago that all you saw was the A320s and A319s. I believe they have 12 more coming this year and both AA and JetBlue have orders for the A321. I love flying these birds from PHL to PHX, but I wonder what is the cause for the recent popularity of this aircraft?

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2848 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16285 times:

Well, for B6 I have a feeling it is mostly to be able to deal with the slot-controlled airports that they have significant operations out of. JFK, LGA, EWR, DCA, LGB....they all have slot restrictions so you might as well try to maximize your slot without having to add a completely different fleet type. Bump up the size of the aircraft on some of the high-frequency routes, that causes excess capacity so you can drop a frequency or two which frees a slot or two to add new destinations using the 320's or 190's. I can't speak on behalf of the folks that are weeeeeeeell above me on this totem pole, but that would be my guess.   


"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlineLostSound From Canada, joined May 2012, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16263 times:

My guesses:

-As the economy is regaining itself slowly, the amount of fliers are doing the same. So more capacity is needed.
-More cargo space and passenger capacity then A320 and A319s.
-Replacement of aging 757s they may have.
-The sharklets and NEO variants recently announced bring the A321 a little closer in line with the 757.

And the obvious, it's a wonderful workhorse.  



"Our hands are full, our lives are not"
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16228 times:

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 1):
Well, for B6 I have a feeling it is mostly to be able to deal with the slot-controlled airports that they have significant operations out of. JFK, LGA, EWR, DCA, LGB....

I'm inclined to think if they have the version with the improved engines it is mainly to avoid fuel stops on their transcons, whcih depending on the time of the year is an almost daily occurence on the A320's, this year has not been too bad.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 1):
I have a feeling it is mostly to be able to deal with the slot-controlled airports that they have significant operations out of. JFK, LGA, EWR, DCA, LGB....they all have slot restrictions so you might as well try to maximize your slot without having to add a completely different fleet type.

Agreed. But its also the CASM. Enough routes have matured to the point where they need more capacity at peak times. Frequency is great, but there are always times that are more popular than others (e.g., first 3 flights LAX-DFW are far more in demand than flight #4 and #5, but that is AA).

Quoting LostSound (Reply 2):
-Replacement of aging 757s they may have.

That will be a huge influence, in particularly with the NEO. The NEO will easily do west coast to Hawaii or Europe to the mid-east. So most (not all) of the 757 market will be replace by the NEO and MAX and mostly with the longest versions. I'm hearing noise about TATL versions too (money is being spent to develop the A321NEO for TATL with US being the most interested customer).

It comes down to low per flight costs (mass produced common parts, high cycle lives of components).

Quoting LostSound (Reply 2):
-The sharklets and NEO variants recently announced bring the A321 a little closer in line with the 757.

And that is the final reason. Every engine improvement of the 737 has increased the 'optimal length' from the 732 to 733 to the 738. I suspect for the max the best selling variant will be the 739 as the NEO it shall be the A321. Not day one, but the near-lack of 737-7MAX and A319 sales shows a trend to longer length airframes.

Note: That won't be true for a new design optimized for a smaller passenger load. The new engines push the optimal length longer due to the improved mission performance.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2848 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16105 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
I'm inclined to think if they have the version with the improved engines it is mainly to avoid fuel stops on their transcons, whcih depending on the time of the year is an almost daily occurence on the A320's, this year has not been too bad.

The A321's will have the V2500's just like the A320's, just a different thrust rating. The sharklets will help too with efficiency. The A321's will not be NEO's though.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
Agreed. But its also the CASM. Enough routes have matured to the point where they need more capacity at peak times. Frequency is great, but there are always times that are more popular than others (e.g., first 3 flights LAX-DFW are far more in demand than flight #4 and #5, but that is AA).

That's a really good point too, right-sizing the individual frequency.



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 15786 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
I'm hearing noise about TATL versions too (money is being spent to develop the A321NEO for TATL with US being the most interested customer).

What is to be expected?
Aerodynamic cleanup or higher weight variant. Or is something being done to increase the fuel load?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 6):
What is to be expected?
Aerodynamic cleanup or higher weight variant. Or is something being done to increase the fuel load?

All of the above plus an engine PIP. I'm not working the project (hence why I can debate about it), so I won't claim to know the details. But all seems to focus around a MTOW increase for the A321 which would only be done with a greater fuel load.

However, let's be clear. The current A321NEO proposal is *not* TATL capable. Those that I know admit the concept is still at the paper (well... electron) stage. Will it happen? I strongly believe so, but that is but my opinion.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinelegion242 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15260 times:

Could someone tell this neophyte what TATL is?


Don't make me release the monkeys!!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14996 times:

Quoting legion242 (Reply 8):
Could someone tell this neophyte what TATL is?

Common abbreviation for "Transatlantic".


User currently offlineaerdingus From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 2758 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14966 times:

Quoting legion242 (Reply 8):

TATL = Trans Atlantic  



Cabin crew blog http://dolefuldolegirl.blogspot.ie/
User currently offlineJano From Slovakia, joined Jan 2004, 823 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14764 times:

Quoting legion242 (Reply 8):
Could someone tell this neophyte what TATL is?

and there is a TPAC too  



The Widget Air Line :)
User currently offlinelegion242 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14487 times:

Duh. Thanks everyone!!


Don't make me release the monkeys!!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jano (Reply 11):
and there is a TPAC too

for Trans-pacific

TCON: Trans-Continental (usually for US coast to coast flights)

Quoting legion242 (Reply 8):

Could someone tell this neophyte what TATL is?

Never hesitate to ask such questions. You will find we also use airline codes (e.g., UA=United Airlines while 6E=Indigo, the #1 domestic airline in India). Those should tell you which airline has which code when you run the mouse over the symbol for airlines (and airports), but not always.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4494 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If you don't use the underbelly containers for cargo/luggage on an A321 (and I don;t think any N American carrier does) , does the loader need to move each bag manually to the far end of each compartment or is there still some mechanised means of moving them in the compartment? Just seems on a A321/757,739/8 its long way from door to the far end of any compartment!

User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14125 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 14):

If you don't have the tray system that ua uses or the magic carpet that dl has been disabling and removing from 752 and 738, you will usually have 2 in the bin, one to stack and one to throw. The nice thing I found about the 738 and 739 when I worked for Menzies at sea is the curvature of the bin allows for one person to do the offload, although the bags sometimes missed the belt, which was convienent when we were shorthanded.



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineabbamd From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11648 times:

"If you don't have the tray system that ua uses or the magic carpet that dl has been disabling and removing from 752 and 738, you will usually have 2 in the bin, one to stack and one to throw. The nice thing I found about the 738 and 739 when I worked for Menzies at sea is the curvature of the bin allows for one person to do the offload, although the bags sometimes missed the belt, which was convienent when we were shorthanded."


http://www.industrialmanlifts.com/product/mobile-belt-loader/


I guess this would eliminate the need for Magic Carpets and Ace Cargo Loaders.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4494 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11577 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

whats the "tray system"?

User currently offlineabbamd From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11488 times:

Its a system similar to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXbS_npzKEs


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11091 times:

I do think with aerodynamic improvements and the new engines for the A320neo Family of planes, the A321 may get a new lease on life as a replacement of 757-200's on medium-range routes up to 3,500 nautical miles still-air range. I'm sure the A321neo could easily fly US transcon flights on a full passenger/cargo load, something that might attract JetBlue (B6) in the near future for flights between SEA/SFO/LAX and JFK.

User currently offlinewomenbeshoppin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10132 times:

US A321s do not have the "magic bins"

User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9633 times:

I've been seeing a lot of US A321s at IAH lately. They used to run 757s here, but I haven't seen one in at least a year or two. US doesn't have a downloadable flight timetable that I could locate, but it appears that their IAH A321s serve CLT, not PHX or PHL.

It's probable in part that US can bring its A321s to IAH because of their *A partner UA's hub there. For comparison, I don't see regularly-scheduled 757s from AA or DL at IAH. (Although I think AA did once fly 757s to IAH from ORD or DFW.)

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
I'm hearing noise about TATL versions too (money is being spent to develop the A321NEO for TATL with US being the most interested customer).

Certainly, UAL would be on that thing like a duck on a junebug!

  
Scottie


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
But all seems to focus around a MTOW increase for the A321 which would only be done with a greater fuel load.

FWIW I don't think they will need much extra MTOW to get the job done either. Depending on wnat needs to be done to the airframe that might add OEW.
If you add in the engine PIP you mention, I reckon about another 5t (to 98t) gets you the range of the heaviest (115t) and youngest 757-200's...

Wonder if they would look at an extended wing, such as the 757 has (relative to the 737)

Rgds


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8531 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
Will it happen? I strongly believe so, but that is but my opinion.

Interesting....

When could we expect to hear something about this A321NEO-S from Airbus, and what can be expected regarding service entry?


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8464 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
But all seems to focus around a MTOW increase for the A321 which would only be done with a greater fuel load.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
I reckon about another 5t (to 98t) gets you the range of the heaviest (115t) and youngest 757-200's...

Wonder if they would look at an extended wing, such as the 757 has (relative to the 737)

How much margin does the current (or Neo) wing have for MTOW increases, I always had the impression that there wasn't much wiggle room left.



Regards,
StickShaker


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 24):
How much margin does the current (or Neo) wing have for MTOW increases, I always had the impression that there wasn't much wiggle room left.

That was my impression too. Hence the question.
That said, I can't help thinking that if today's wing is lifting 93t, the sharkletted wing might have a bit of slack. But I can't imagine it being much

Rgds


User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6220 times:

Quoting abbamd (Reply 16):

I'd take that over the tray or magic carpet anyway.

Quoting abbamd (Reply 18):

That is what's commonly referred to as the magic carpet. The tray system is almost identical, except instead of a rubber mat the extends to the rear or forward of the bin, you have what is in essence a cascading aluminum floor.



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6078 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 24):
How much margin does the current (or Neo) wing have for MTOW increases, I always had the impression that there wasn't much wiggle room left.

The A321 wing is highly loaded, it has a wingloading of 760kg/m2 which is high. It therefore have more advanced flaps then the A320 and 319 to get acceptable landing speeds, the two are at the more normal 650 and 600 respectively. The negative is that the 321 start it's long-range cruise at a lowly FL270 and barely gets up to the desirable 360+ levels before it is time for descent, this means the air it flies in is thicker which means more drag and the engines don't work at the best FL, bad for TSFC. Aspect ratio is fine at 11 but this is more due to low wingarea (123m2) then an nice long span (37m effective span including the sharklets).

The 737 is a bit better as it has a tick better of all wing values, 125m2, 38m effective span and is lighter, the 9MAX has a wingloading of around 700kg/m2. One can see that the 737 wing is a later design and lower weight is always a positive.

To improve the A321 one would really need a larger wing, the sharklets have helped with the induced drag but the next step should achieve a lower wingloading to fly higher. The extra fuel for TATL goes in the other direction, it will mean degraded start and landing performance which most likely is OK as one would fly from substantial airports for these missions, don't know if the low initial FL cause any ATC problems.



Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5949 times:

The A321 is the perfect base for a 757 replacement, but it would need a 777-X sort of update.

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

Considering the 757 never had much of a market anyway, does it really matter if it's not a perfect base for a 757 replacement.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5614 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 29):
Considering the 757 never had much of a market anyway

They sold more than 1000...how is that not a market?

Tom.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5600 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30):
They sold more than 1000...how is that not a market?

Badly phrased. It's longevity was relatively short because widebodies and more capable smaller craft took much of the market it had originally away from it. The market it as left with was not large enough to be sustainable. That market is probably still too small for Airbus to justify signigicant investment in a larger wing, even though it would improve the performance of the plane.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5628 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 29):
Considering the 757 never had much of a market anyway

They sold more than 1000...how is that not a market?

The 1,049 757s sold (1,050 built but the first one wasn't sold) also exeeded the 1,010 707s built. Did the 707 also "not have much of a market"?


User currently onlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2789 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4904 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 31):
It's longevity was relatively short because widebodies and more capable smaller craft took much of the market it had originally away from it.

The claim by many that there was barely a market for the 757 is a rather moot point in today' world. Time and the aviation model have both moved on since Boeing ceased production of what, IMO, was the most aesthetically pleasing narrowbody ever.

The B767 started the fragmentation of hub to hub services worldwide, and in the hey day of B757 production, the B767 had taken the lion's share of both the transatlantic and transcontinental market from the larger widebody tris and quads.

Move forward to today, and the 757 is now a serious participant in those 2 markets, especially transatlantic, whilst the transcontinental market has further fragmented down to the likes of the B738 and A320.

It is quite ironic that at the time production of the 757 ceased, it was regarded by many, including respected aviation professionals, as a niche product serving a market sector which could not justify the R & D and costs involved in bringing a replacement to market.

Wind forward to today, and now it is this market sector that some airlines are acutely aware will eventually need a 757 replacement in order to maintain and continue their presence in some of their profitable markets.

What do the likes of AA, DL, UA and US have for the transatlantic markets which can sustain a 757 profitably, but not a larger widebody, if 1/ oil rises further and 2/ when their 757 fleet flies off to the desert due to age or the fact they are simply no longer economical to operate?

Airlines are demanding guaranteed range and economics. Whilst it might be acceptable to have the occasional splash and dash on a STR - EWR or BOS - LAX, it won't be with any new addition to their fleets.

If Airbus is able to make a 180 seater A321neo+, with a 3,600NM range and significant cost savings compared to the B757, it could have a 400+ frame market all to themselves, which wouldn't be a bad return for a 'niche' derivative of a model.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4736 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 33):
If Airbus is able to make a 180 seater A321neo+, with a 3,600NM range and significant cost savings compared to the B757, it could have a 400+ frame market all to themselves, which wouldn't be a bad return for a 'niche' derivative of a model.

Agreed. But it is not entirely up to Airbus, because a A321NEO+ probably around 98t MTOW, would need a bit bigger engine than the highest thrust rating (33k) that Cfm or V2500 are coughing out today.

So it is really a question of if the new breed of narrow body engines can be stretched a bit further, than the current generation, with out to much investment.


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4160 posts, RR: 76
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4610 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 27):
The A321 wing is highly loaded, it has a wingloading of 760kg/m2 which is high. It therefore have more advanced flaps then the A320 and 319 to get acceptable landing speeds

I wouldn't certainly say that : the more advanced wing is on the 320 : it has single slotted trailing edge flaps of a simpler, lighter and more efficient design.
The A321 high lift devices are, as a matter of fact, a return to older days and the reason is not a search for more manageable approach speeds but in reality for a reduced aft body angle at takeoff rotation . The L/D is very slightly better but the improvement on Clmax is minute.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 27):
the 321 start it's long-range cruise at a lowly FL270 and barely gets up to the desirable 360+ levels before it is time for descent,

Please review these figures : my initial level is 310, guaranteed up to ISA+10°C (5B3s)



Contrail designer
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4472 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
The 1,049 757s sold (1,050 built but the first one wasn't sold) also exeeded the 1,010 707s built. Did the 707 also "not have much of a market"?

No, you can't compare aircraft types from different generations to gauge success, the size of the market sales was completely different.
An single order for 15 Aircraft in the 1960's was BIG.
An single order for 200 aircraft today is, "yeah another one".

The 707 was much more successful than the 757 relative to the overall size of the airline business back in those days.

The 757 did well at 1,000, but compared to other Boeing types during the same generation, it lagged behind in sales.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30):
They sold more than 1000...how is that not a market?

You only need less than 500 frames to replace all the niche roles the 757 fills today. Most of the 757's built were not for TA ops.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 35):
Please review these figures : my initial level is 310, guaranteed up to ISA+10°C (5B3s)

Nice to have a 321 driver chip in, thanks Pihero. That initial FL is my result with a MTOW of 93.5t, what do you start from when you get to initial FL 310?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 35):
The A321 high lift devices are, as a matter of fact, a return to older days and the reason is not a search for more manageable approach speeds but in reality for a reduced aft body angle at takeoff rotation . The L/D is very slightly better but the improvement on Clmax is minute.

Thanks, I know it has an extra flap on the trailing edge on the main flap, but I remembered wrong from our wing discussions in Tech-Ops, it is indeed to push the lift to lower Alfas, also described in the Rudolph doc we discussed then. This NASA study also states that A has increased the wingarea for the 321 by extending the trailing edge, it is not dramatic but will lower the wingloading somewhat.


Re how to get to longer range, the A320 series are universally fuel limited, the range values we see from A of 3700nm for a A321neo are with 2 cargo room extra tanks (ACTs of 3000l each). I made a payload-range diagram with a varying number of ACTs to show what they give, here goes (Pihero, please correct what's wrong) :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRA321neos.jpg

Now this is with spec cabins, one needs to add a bit for a realistic one (the diagram has oeo OEW 49t, neo 50.3t ) then pax + bags. I would say 15t for a 150 pax+bags should be a good start. With an additional 3-5t for cabin and catering etc we would be at some 4200nm or so with a 4ACT model especially if the GTF/Leap PIPs can give us a bit longer legs. For the last curve I added 2.5t TOW to get the fuel limit out to where the payload + extra weights goes, should be doable without to much ado.

[Edited 2012-11-26 08:21:32]


Non French in France
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4120 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 37):
Re how to get to longer range, the A320 series are universally fuel limited, the range values we see from A of 3700nm for a A321neo are with 2 cargo room extra tanks (ACTs of 3000l each).

The only question I have is whether Airbus have left the basic tankage alone when re-working the wing for the sharklets.

In moving from the 737 classic to the 737NG, Boeing increased the wing capacity from 16.1 tonnes to 20.9 tonnes

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec2.pdf

As you rightly point out, all of the A32X are seriously fuel limited. I'm eagerly waiting to find out if Airbus have had a go at addressing this..

rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4019 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
The only question I have is whether Airbus have left the basic tankage alone when re-working the wing for the sharklets.

While I think they would like to there seems not to be much room, here the normal tank arrangement for a A321 (from this site http://www.inral.com/Atto/contents.htm) :



The center position is already used. There is room for ACTs however, for a TATL mission your are weight limited so why not use those 10 LD3-45 positions (seems there is 10 left with 2 ACTs), take 2 additional and you have 8 left for bags. Now that can be a bit tight so you probably need to load bags in the bulk hold as well or load all bags as bulk.

All in all it seems to work, someone who knows why it should not?

[Edited 2012-11-26 11:11:35]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

Comparing the 752 and the A321, how much bigger wings does the 752 have compared?

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3875 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First, a thank you to Ferpe on the wing loading numbers.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
If you add in the engine PIP you mention, I reckon about another 5t (to 98t) gets you the range of the heaviest (115t) and youngest 757-200's...

I was being lazier.  
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 23):
When could we expect to hear something about this A321NEO-S from Airbus, and what can be expected regarding service entry?

That I do not know. US is very interested, but Pratt is waiting to see what fuel burn is after a year of service before promising more. There also must be time for a thrust increase (both in airframe and engine engineering).

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 24):
How much margin does the current (or Neo) wing have for MTOW increases, I always had the impression that there wasn't much wiggle room left.

The wing loading is high, which makes take off performance an issue. So Airbus/Pratt/GE must look into maximum thrust for improved take off performance. The short field performance will not match the 752, but there is a desire for improved service.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 27):
bad for TSFC.

Nitpick, bad for required thrust. The fuel burn per thrust required isn't what is hard hit by flying low, it is the added fuel needed for said required thrust.   

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
The only question I have is whether Airbus have left the basic tankage alone when re-working the wing for the sharklets.

I have only heard about tricks to reduce the 'unusable fuel' (get it burned) rather than the total volume. Please recall Boeing put a new wing on the 737NG.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3810 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
Nitpick, bad for required thrust. The fuel burn per thrust required isn't what is hard hit by flying low, it is the added fuel needed for said required thrust.

- I've read it more then 5 times and can't still figure it out, well done   ...



Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
In moving from the 737 classic to the 737NG, Boeing increased the wing capacity from 16.1 tonnes to 20.9 tonnes

That was far more a result of relofting the wing than anything to do with adjustment for winglets. A very nice side benefit of supercritical airfoils is that fuel volume goes up for an aerodynamically equivalent wing.

Tom.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3725 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 42):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
Nitpick, bad for required thrust. The fuel burn per thrust required isn't what is hard hit by flying low, it is the added fuel needed for said required thrust.

- I've read it more then 5 times and can't still figure it out, well done

TSFC=Thrust specific fuel consumption.

So what you wrote implies the engines will need more fuel for the same thrust at lower altitude. True, but not the primary reason that a lower cruise altitude hurts cruise range (it is a secondary impact). The airframe will require more thrust at lower altitudes to maintain velocity.


So because more thrust is required at lower altitudes, the airplane will burn more fuel. By calling out TSFC, you imply the engines become less efficient with lower altitude when in reality it is the system becoming less efficient due to the higher drag.

Any clearer?  
Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3695 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44):
Any clearer?

Very much so, agree that the frame needs more power lower down, but how do you explain this then?

TSFC as a function of FL at cruise M:




Non French in France
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4160 posts, RR: 76
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 37):
That initial FL is my result with a MTOW of 93.5t, what do you start from when you get to initial FL 310?

The main difference is the initial conditions : I use everyday data from the CI and only know the econ parameters or the max range ones ( CI = 0 ).Long range isn't the concern.
Those data are quite close to my QRH "Optimised flight management" graphs.
So, with these provisos, to-day : TOW 87 T : Optimum @ 313 FL ; Max alt (1.3g prot) 335 : Econ M .80.

On a different subject, a lot of people just paste the A320 wing geometry onto the A321... in fact, the little addition to the yehudi and the trailing edge amounts to an extra surface of just under 4 square meters, bringing the wing area to 126.5 or 128 sq m, depending on how you measure the wing area... Sooooo ! I have a feeling that your wing loading should be reviewed downwards.

In my opinion, and considering that both the A320 and the A319, in spite of their lower wing loading than the 737 NGs still don't match their climbing ability has more to do with the airfoil (s ?) than the plan geometry... That the 'buses have been optimised for low-to-medium trips is proven by the fact that cruising, as a rule, some 3 to 4,000 ft lower than the 737, they achieve very similar fuel figures for any given traffic load.(See the very thorough Mandala studies )



Contrail designer
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3352 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
but how do you explain this then?

TSFC as a function of FL at cruise M:

That is the 'secondary effect.'  

More of the fuel consumption is just pushing aside heavier air (which an engine must do anyway). It also is trusting against higher back pressure air which reduces thrust... So what you showed is accurate, just not the primary reason fuel burn is killed.

To quote myself:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44):
So what you wrote implies the engines will need more fuel for the same thrust at lower altitude. True, but not the primary reason that a lower cruise altitude hurts cruise range (it is a secondary impact).

As I said a 'nitpick' which implies we're splitting hairs anyway.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 46):
I have a feeling that your wing loading should be reviewed downwards.

I'll admit to that 'rookie mistake.'

Quoting Pihero (Reply 46):
That the 'buses have been optimised for low-to-medium trips is proven by the fact that cruising, as a rule, some 3 to 4,000 ft lower than the 737, they achieve very similar fuel figures for any given traffic load.(See the very thorough Mandala studies )

If I may rephrase, the 737NG was given a larger wing to better optimize it for long haul missions.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
TSFC as a function of FL at cruise M:

The table lists "A380 T800". Shouldn't this be "777 T800"? The "A380 T900" should be somewhere in between of the "GE90-115" and "787 GEnx".


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 48):
The table lists "A380 T800". Shouldn't this be "777 T800"? The "A380 T900" should be somewhere in between of the "GE90-115" and "787 GEnx".

That is a typo, it should say T900, it is indeed the TSFC for the A380. The data is from PianoX, he has the whole TSFC map (engine deck) in there and you can plot it by using point performance mode. The GE90-115 I derived from multiple data sources in Internet giving best TSFC as 0.545, now cross referencing a lot of further data I start to doubt that, it seems more like best value should be around 0.55. The GE90X is the 7% better version originally proposed by GE, they now claim 10% better for an EIS in the 2020 time frame so that should mean around 0.50.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 46):
Those data are quite close to my QRH "Optimised flight management" graphs.
So, with these provisos, to-day : TOW 87 T : Optimum @ 313 FL ; Max alt (1.3g prot) 335 : Econ M .80.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 46):
On a different subject, a lot of people just paste the A320 wing geometry onto the A321... in fact, the little addition to the yehudi and the trailing edge amounts to an extra surface of just under 4 square meters, bringing the wing area to 126.5 or 128 sq m, depending on how you measure the wing area... Sooooo ! I have a feeling that your wing loading should be reviewed downwards.

Thanks, the wingloading then goes to 740 kg/m2. Things then seem to fit as I have initial FL270, middle cruise 310 and highest 330 for a 93.5t version when I put in the 4m2 more wingarea. Now my calculations are more crude then your A performance computer of course, I check the CL at different FL / Weights and have a CLmax of 0.55 as the criteria, it seems to work for most wings.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47):
If I may rephrase, the 737NG was given a larger wing to better optimize it for long haul missions.

I think the 737 NG was given a wing more designed to it's mission and frame size (aka 737-800), the A321 wing is still the 10 year older design from 1980-82 and then the A320 wing was not optimized for MTOWs north of 90t me thinks. Adding 4m2 helps but does not bring the wingloading down to the more normal 650-700 values for a short haul frame.

EDIT: I have since gone into a A320 FCOM that I have, Piheros data is indeed the initial FL data, Airbus has the A320 wing optimized around CL 0.55-0.57 rather then 0.50. I need to revise my A320 data accordingly.

[Edited 2012-11-26 21:53:54]


Non French in France
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AC A321's @ YWG And YYZ posted Tue Dec 4 2001 16:18:08 by AC_B777
Difference Between A321-100 And -200 posted Sun Oct 7 2001 12:12:52 by Hoons90
Differences Between A321-100 And A321-200? posted Sat Aug 25 2001 17:12:08 by Donder10
What´s The Difference Between A321-100 And -200? posted Thu Dec 7 2000 12:21:37 by Airsicknessbag
A321-100 And A321-200 posted Sun Jan 2 2000 22:48:38 by Flumuc
BR News: "Hello Kitty" 77W And First A321 posted Wed Oct 31 2012 20:13:55 by BreninTW
F9, VX And The A321 posted Sun Aug 19 2012 16:41:57 by caleb1
AA Makes A319 And A321 Selection Official posted Mon Nov 21 2011 13:11:05 by AAIL86
Air Lease Corp. Ordering 20 A321 And 31 A320 posted Mon Jul 19 2010 04:12:56 by ManuCH
Vietnam Airlines Orders 16 A321 And 2 A350XWB posted Tue Jun 16 2009 06:18:07 by Aviationbuff