Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Actual Range Of The A321-200?  
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7553 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm confused. Boeing is doing their sales thing about the B739ER on their website and it is a fairly good read - they give out lots of info about range and weight with different configs etc (source: boeing.com). Airbus is a different animal... they have very little info about the A321-200, and their numbers doesn't match those of airlines.

Example: Airbus claims that the A321-200 can fly 5,550 kms Paris-Boston with 185 pax and baggage while German carrier LTU claim that their A321-200 can fly 5,700 kms with 204 pax... (source: airbus.com and LTU.de).

MyTravel fly Oslo-Canary Islands which is 4,100-4,300 kms with 211 pax, Airbus claim that the A321-200 can fly US transcon routes but many a.netters say that the aircraft cannot fly US transcon with a useful payload (185 pax at least) and the distance is about the same as Oslo-Canary Islands... I have not seen any US transcon schedules flown with the A321-200.

Does anyone know how far a high-density-configured A321-200 can fly without the extra centre tank? Does MyTravel or Monarch or LTU or Novair have extra fuel tanks in their high-density seating aircraft?

Is the B739ER a serious threat to the A321-200?

Suggestions and opinions most welcome  Smile


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7523 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter):
Airbus is a different animal... they have very little info about the A321-200, and their numbers doesn't match those of airlines.

Airbus use to provide a range/payload Z-chart for the A321-200 in the "Performance" section of the A320 page. Since the Airbus redesgin, I cannot find the graphs.

Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter):
Is the B739ER a serious threat to the A321-200?

It is a very serious threat, on paper. It fully levels the A320 and 737NG families, and the 739ER should be quite a bit lighter and more fuel efficet with the same payload over a greater distance.

In terms of orders, both the A321 and 739ER are outliers and fill niche markets only. The A321 has hardly set the world on fire with 487 orders over about 15 years, likewise, the 739ER will not be a rapid seller. Airlines with bulk 757 replacement will likely wait a few years until Airbus/Boeing launch their next-generation narrow-bodies.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7464 times:

There are also other factors which distort the numbers.

For instance, flights may depart airports with shorter runways which need the aircraft to be lighter. Hence less fuel. Also some routes carry more additional cargo, especially those on what we now call legacy carriers. Another factor is the temperatures of the airports being operated to and how that impacts on the aircraft.

LTU and MyTravel are principally charter carriers who would not be using the maximum payload of the A321. Similarly, there are airports in the USA which don't have long runways but still have transcontinental service (places like Burbank). The same issue cropped up when Virgin wanted to use LHR for its longer runways, allowing them to load the aircraft with more fuel and cargo than LGW with its shorter runway allows.

It is much more complex than just swallowing constructor figures, and depends so much on just what the aircraft is being used for (and from where).


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17017 posts, RR: 67
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7457 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter):
I have not seen any US transcon schedules flown with the A321-200.

Well, are there any US operators of the 321? I'm tired so I may be missing an obvious one. But in any case all the US operators are up to their ears in 757s. Those will do the job without complaint for a while longer.

As Whitehatter says, the interesting time will be when the 757s get old. Will airlines simply say "321 is fine"? Will they buy the short 787? Will Airbus make a 321NG (is this possible given the already stretched plane)?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7431 times:

Why A321-200.What was the A321-100.I've heard of the A320-100 though.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7416 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
Well, are there any US operators of the 321?

US Airways and Spirit Airlines in the US, Air Canada in Can.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4):
Why A321-200.What was the A321-100.

The A321-100 was the baseline aircraft with about the same weight as the A320, giving it extra seats but shorter range. LH and AF fly the -100 on short Euro hops. The A321-200 has a higher MTOW to offer more pax AND range.

I dropped by Monarch's website and they say the 220-seat A321-200 has about 4,250 km range... so MYT must have about 4,500 km in their 211-seat A321-200s then, I guess... but is that with or without extra fuel tanks? If that is with extra fuel, then LTU must have a typo in their fleet overview as they say their A321-200 can fly 5,700 km with 204 pax... or...?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17017 posts, RR: 67
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7320 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 5):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
Well, are there any US operators of the 321?

US Airways and Spirit Airlines in the US, Air Canada in Can.

US Airways!!! Of course. Thx. I had a brainfart.

Still, the 321 wasn't really built for US transcon. As I see it, it was built for lesser trunk Euroroutes like LHR-CPH. Capacity was more important for customers than range.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4927 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7309 times:

We fly the A321-200 from YYZ-SFO, about 2100 nms. At about 5:40, it is the longest A321 flight in our system. Range is never a problem with the aircraft, even with a long alternate, and we usually leave with a lot of open weight, even with all the passenger seats filled. (24J / 142Y in our configuration). While runway performance is certainly a factor, it really all depends to what MTOW the aircraft has been licenced.

Certain airlines, AC included, do not licence the aircraft to its maximum capability. Our MTOW is 93,000 kgs for the A321-200. This may cause the variation in performance figures you mention.

And for the record, the A321 has far better runway performance than the A320.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7264 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 7):
Certain airlines, AC included, do not licence the aircraft to its maximum capability. Our MTOW is 93,000 kgs for the A321-200. This may cause the variation in performance figures you mention.

I thought 93,500 kgs was the ultimate MTOW for the A321-200 (according to airbus.com)... that should make your company's aircraft a powerhouse machine with "only" 166 seats...? Thanx for your reply, mate  thumbsup . Oh, by the way, do AC A321-200 have extra fuel tanks?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7245 times:

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 7):
And for the record, the A321 has far better runway performance than the A320.

I this because of the A321's double slotted flaps, because the T/Ws are about the same for AC's A320s (0.30 or 0.32) as they are for AC's A321s (0.31)? The nominal W/Ss are of course a fair bit higher for the A321 (155 psf vs 126 or 129 psf).


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7215 times:

On www.amadeus.net , I´ve found US flights PHL-SFO and PHL-LAX flights on the A321, scheduled with flight times up to 6:22.

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 7):
And for the record, the A321 has far better runway performance than the A320.

Really ? I didn´t know this. How big is the difference to the A319 ? I´m asking this because I´d like to know if the A321 could fly to/from SDU.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17017 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7213 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 10):
On www.amadeus.net , I´ve found US flights PHL-SFO and PHL-LAX flights on the A321, scheduled with flight times up to 6:22.

6:22? That must be block time. JFK-LAX is only about 5½ in the air normally.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7108 times:

The A321-200 has got a MTOW of 93t.
The -200 indicates that it has got the option for one or two ACT's (hence the higher MTOW - visible from the rear belly by either the drain holes for the ACT or the blanks if there isn't an ACT). Some airlines might just take an option for 1 ACT and therefore the MTOW is less and landing fees also.
That's why you'll have different ranges with the -200 (as it can have no, 1 or 2 extra fuel tanks)


User currently offlineDanman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2002, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7095 times:

The MyTravel 321s used for the longer sectors have the ACT

User currently offline320tech From Turks and Caicos Islands, joined May 2004, 491 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7060 times:

do AC A321-200 have extra fuel tanks?

Yes.



The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the manufacturer and impossible for the AME.
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7045 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Danman (Reply 13):
The MyTravel 321s used for the longer sectors have the ACT

As in one tank or two, or do they have one tank that is big enough to fit two tanks...?

Quoting 320tech (Reply 14):
do AC A321-200 have extra fuel tanks?

Yes.

As in two tanks?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7044 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 15):
As in one tank or two, or do they have one tank that is big enough to fit two tanks...?

You can't have one tank as big as two. Each tank holds around 2.6t off the top of my head.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7031 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 12):
The A321-200 has got a MTOW of 93t.
The -200 indicates that it has got the option for one or two ACT's (hence the higher MTOW - visible from the rear belly by either the drain holes for the ACT or the blanks if there isn't an ACT). Some airlines might just take an option for 1 ACT and therefore the MTOW is less and landing fees also.
That's why you'll have different ranges with the -200 (as it can have no, 1 or 2 extra fuel tanks)

So you could select 93-ton MTOW without ACTs, say if you want to carry much cargo over medium distances ?
How much cargo could a A321-200 typically take in addtion to the baggage ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7030 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
So you could select 93-ton MTOW without ACTs, say if you want to carry much cargo over medium distances ?
How much cargo could a A321-200 typically take in addtion to the baggage ?

I have no idea, but I suppose you could carry the same weight as the ACT and fuel in it in that same space. However, IIRC landing fees increase with increasing MTOW.
But such things are not my speciality.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7015 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter):
I have not seen any US transcon schedules flown with the A321-200.

US uses theirs almost exclusively on transcons.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Still, the 321 wasn't really built for US transcon.

The -200 was. It was a major consideration of US purchasing them.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
JFK-LAX is only about 5� in the air normally.

Not during the winter... it almost always is north of 6.

N


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17017 posts, RR: 67
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6996 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 19):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
JFK-LAX is only about 5� in the air normally.

Not during the winter... it almost always is north of 6.

Winter. Ah well good point. Still, I flew it in 2nd week of Dec in 5:24. And we all know trends can be extrapolated from one datapoint. Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6424 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6989 times:

You can find almost all the numbers you want on most airliner types.

Many airlines have (some of) their planes registered with a lower MTOW than the max certified TOW.

At many airports you pay a fee which is partly based on the registered MTOW. If you don't need the full range potential of the plane, then it is a wise and natural way to save on airport fees.

For instance SAS has had some 737-600 registered with such a low MTOW that the range with full pax load was no more than 800nm. It makes sense when the planes are used entirely from Scandinavian capital cities to Germany, Britain, Benelux or on for instance Swedish domestic routes.

To have such a plane "re-registered" with a different MTOW is probably little more than an email to the local CAA.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Actual Range Of The A321-200?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Dimensions Of The A340-200/ 300 Nacelle posted Fri Apr 7 2006 14:23:04 by Archischmidt
What Was The Range Of The DC-8-62? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 03:01:05 by AmericanB763ER
What Is The Range Of A Plane Radio? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 19:49:51 by Lenbrazil
Actual Max Range Of A Boeing 757-200ER W/Winglets? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 14:43:56 by BrightCedars
Range Of Horizontal Trim Angles For B757-200 posted Mon Sep 5 2005 16:55:55 by 9V-SPJ
What's The Actual Cost Of Airfare?! posted Fri Oct 24 2003 04:47:06 by QANTAS747-438
JetMech's Technical Tour Of The Trent 700. posted Fri Oct 27 2006 19:16:21 by JetMech
The Size Of The 747 Freighter Opening posted Sat Oct 21 2006 11:34:47 by NZ107
Why The Little Hole At The Bottom Of The Window? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 03:19:07 by Gh123
A320 Questions Of The Day posted Sun Oct 1 2006 22:29:22 by Symphonik

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format