Varsity1 wrote:

The 321LR is a 3,000nm airplane in real world conditions.

Varsity1 wrote:

The 321LR is a 3,000nm airplane in real world conditions. Still enough for some routes.

Slash787 wrote:

They can push the limit more if they want to, but again this is just flight testing, many airlines won't do 11 or 12 hr routes on the A321LR, I guess Airlines will go Maximum 9 hrs.

LAX772LR wrote:

LoganTheBogan wrote:

That's amazing.

What's so amazing about that.

ODwyerPW wrote:

It will be interesting to see the results with a GTF powered unit... This plane has been flying with the same wing for 3 decades... Imagine how capable it will be with it's eventual carbon fibre re-wing... and perhaps minor stretch.... Who would have imagined this plane would have so much potential when it was released so many years ago?

airbazar wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:

It will be interesting to see the results with a GTF powered unit... This plane has been flying with the same wing for 3 decades... Imagine how capable it will be with it's eventual carbon fibre re-wing... and perhaps minor stretch.... Who would have imagined this plane would have so much potential when it was released so many years ago?

The problem with stretching the wing is that it would no longer be a code C aircraft.
The A321neo wingspan stands at 35.8m. Anything at or above 36m would become a code D, like the 767.
The only solution is a redesigned and improved wing without adding wingspan.

flee wrote:

11 hrs and 4,750 nm is something that is over the design goal, isn't it? Maybe they were trying to test its endurance with the flight and push it to the limit. Perhaps this is the maximum. Perhaps, there is more to come?

StTim wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

They flew super slow with a tailwind with no legal diversion fuel (alternate+45min) which would be close to 13 hours.

Not indicative of real North Atlantic service.

The 763ER has a still air range of 6,300NM and it struggles with JFK-HNL in the winter (4,300nm).

The 321LR is a 3,000nm airplane in real world conditions. Still enough for some routes.

How do you know they had a tail wind when Airbus says it was a headwind?

How do you know they had no legal diversion fuel? Does this flight not need to conform to normal safety rules?

waly777 wrote:

flee wrote:

11 hrs and 4,750 nm is something that is over the design goal, isn't it? Maybe they were trying to test its endurance with the flight and push it to the limit. Perhaps this is the maximum. Perhaps, there is more to come?

It was not 4750nm.

It was 4750NAM = 4750 miles = 4130nm

NAM = North american miles = i.e. miles.

NAM was quoted by Airbus.

Impressive flying time nonetheless for a narrow body, must have been quite the strong headwind for 4130nm to take 11 hours though.

JetBuddy wrote:

waly777 wrote:

flee wrote:

11 hrs and 4,750 nm is something that is over the design goal, isn't it? Maybe they were trying to test its endurance with the flight and push it to the limit. Perhaps this is the maximum. Perhaps, there is more to come?

It was not 4750nm.

It was 4750NAM = 4750 miles = 4130nm

NAM = North american miles = i.e. miles.

NAM was quoted by Airbus.

Impressive flying time nonetheless for a narrow body, must have been quite the strong headwind for 4130nm to take 11 hours though.

You need to catch up on what's actually been said in this thread, and maybe read the FlightGlobal article. Great Circle was 4100nm. The route flown was 4316nm. They had up to 100km/h headwind. According to Airbus, the aircraft flew a calculated 4700nm without any headwind. And that was with 162 simulated pax + 11 engineers + 5 crew members onboard.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

JetBuddy wrote:

You need to catch up on what's actually been said in this thread, and maybe read the FlightGlobal article. Great Circle was 4100nm. The route flown was 4316nm. They had up to 100km/h headwind. According to Airbus, the aircraft flew a calculated 4700nm without any headwind. And that was with 162 simulated pax + 11 engineers + 5 crew members onboard.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

tomcat wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

You need to catch up on what's actually been said in this thread, and maybe read the FlightGlobal article. Great Circle was 4100nm. The route flown was 4316nm. They had up to 100km/h headwind. According to Airbus, the aircraft flew a calculated 4700nm without any headwind. And that was with 162 simulated pax + 11 engineers + 5 crew members onboard.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

About the 162 simulated pax, the atwonline article states "162 virtual passengers—in terms of heat given off. On the seats, plastic pipes were filled with water and heated to simulate the cabin environment when actual people are on board for hours. Cabin systems were thus evaluated when taking off from a hot and humid environment, flying at high altitude and arriving at destination in cool temperature".

It's not clear of these 162 virtual passengers weighted anywhere close to 162 typical passengers. The goal of the test was obviously to test the cabin systems. The plane has been in the air for 11 hours, does that sound achievable with 26 tons of fuel and about 17 tons of payload?

LoganTheBogan wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

LoganTheBogan wrote:

That's amazing.

Why? For an op with 3 ACTs and a high north/south component, that's pretty much what it was designed to do.

What's so amazing about that.

Am I not allowed to think something is amazing? For someone who has only ever been on short hops with the A320 family and never really seen this performance with this aircraft I think it's pretty cool. Let alone the fact that 11 hours seems a bit long for this flight. Must have been battling a headwind or bad routing.

StTim wrote:

tomcat wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

You need to catch up on what's actually been said in this thread, and maybe read the FlightGlobal article. Great Circle was 4100nm. The route flown was 4316nm. They had up to 100km/h headwind. According to Airbus, the aircraft flew a calculated 4700nm without any headwind. And that was with 162 simulated pax + 11 engineers + 5 crew members onboard.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

About the 162 simulated pax, the atwonline article states "162 virtual passengers—in terms of heat given off. On the seats, plastic pipes were filled with water and heated to simulate the cabin environment when actual people are on board for hours. Cabin systems were thus evaluated when taking off from a hot and humid environment, flying at high altitude and arriving at destination in cool temperature".

It's not clear of these 162 virtual passengers weighted anywhere close to 162 typical passengers. The goal of the test was obviously to test the cabin systems. The plane has been in the air for 11 hours, does that sound achievable with 26 tons of fuel and about 17 tons of payload?

Yes I saw that and wondered if it was payload or simulated heat output.

I would also welcome a second opinion from a pilot re what fuel reserves Airbus will have likely used on this flight.

Varsity1 wrote:

It wasn't a 121 flight, of course it doesn't need 121 fuel planning.

StTim wrote:

I would also welcome a second opinion from a pilot re what fuel reserves Airbus will have likely used on this flight.

B777LRF wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

It wasn't a 121 flight, of course it doesn't need 121 fuel planning.

Think you'll find the primary reason it wasn't a '121' flight, is because it wasn't flown under US FAA rules. Rather, it would have been operated under EASA rules. Thus:

StTim wrote:

I would also welcome a second opinion from a pilot re what fuel reserves Airbus will have likely used on this flight.

They would have flight planned much the same as any commercial operation under EASA rules: Destination (trip) fuel, 5% contingency, go-around and 30 minutes final reserves as a minimum. Since TLS have 2 runways, and provided the forecast weather was good enough, they might not have carried alternate fuel.

Pt56 wrote:

Or folding wing-tips, Right?

EvanWSFO wrote:

You have the right to be amazed. It's a delivery flight. However, no one is going to fly a scheduled f;light this long.

Newbiepilot wrote:

That is quite far with a reasonable payload. I am impressed that the engine efficiency improvements have allowed that much range out of a relatively small wing. That certainly is enough for Transatlantic but east west routes in normal operation will probably have less range.

Aviaponcho wrote:

All that with the Leap...

PW 1100G Advantage coming in 2021 (2% + delta vs the current Pw and the current Leap)

lightsaber wrote:

Ok, fully on topic, the NEO (both engines) has measurably less cruise fuel burn than expectations. This is excellent engine/wing integration. (Yes, done as well on the MAX). This means more range.

ikramerica wrote:

I’m not sure I understand the purpose of testing the systems for the human heat output of fewer than max passenger count let alone typical pax count.

It’s sort of like testing the efficacy of your HVAC system on an 78 degree day (that’s 25C).

ikramerica wrote:

I’m not sure I understand the purpose of testing the systems for the human heat output of fewer than max passenger count let alone typical pax count.

It’s sort of like testing the efficacy of your HVAC system on an 78 degree day (that’s 25C).

tomcat wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Ok, fully on topic, the NEO (both engines) has measurably less cruise fuel burn than expectations. This is excellent engine/wing integration. (Yes, done as well on the MAX). This means more range.

So do you think that it's possible that this aircraft had 17 tons of payload while achieving an average hourly fuel burn of 2.3 tons (26 tons minus something left after landing divided by 11 hours)? I'm just trying to figure out if our understanding about the payload figure is correct. What would be the fuel burn difference if the take off weight was say 80 tons rather than about 93 tons as we assume it was?

lightsaber wrote:

It amuses me that some complained it wasn't a high density configuration. For there are two markets the A321LR is aimed at:
1. 17 to 18T payload with 3 ACTs
2. 20 to 23 T payload with 2 ACTs

Careful what you wish for. Market #1 is TATL. Market #2 will enable LCCs to extend their reacs

Chaostheory wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

It amuses me that some complained it wasn't a high density configuration. For there are two markets the A321LR is aimed at:
1. 17 to 18T payload with 3 ACTs
2. 20 to 23 T payload with 2 ACTs

Careful what you wish for. Market #1 is TATL. Market #2 will enable LCCs to extend their reacs

One of the more sensible and insightful remarks on this thread.

I think a lot of airlines will be looking closely at the opportunities offered by the LR. Especially those that want to maintain simplified narrowbody fleets. I can see it being very popular in parts of the Americas.

airbazar wrote:

It doesn't matter what the payload was, pax, or winds. 11 hours in the air is 11 hours in the air, regardless of distance. The A321LR is not MTOW limited AFAIK, it's fuel limited hence the 3 ACT's.

FA9295 wrote:

What do they mean by "dummy passengers"?

BaconButty wrote:

The actual route flown was 7994km or 4316nm. However, per Airbus, they flew an extra 10% air distance due to headwinds. Apparently it equates to 4,750 nm without wind. Even if it's without bags that's pretty awesome, and suggests to me that city pairs up to 3800nm apart should be realistic contenders in low density international configurations.
https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/979711715796451328
http://atwonline.com/airframes/airbus-a ... ouse-route

airbazar wrote:

That or a new wing with fuel tanks like the 757. The A321's problem has always been that it's fuel volume limited and part of the reason is because it doesn't have fuel tanks in its wings. Of course either option would result in a significant redesign of the aircraft's structure.

lightsaber wrote:

tomcat wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Ok, fully on topic, the NEO (both engines) has measurably less cruise fuel burn than expectations. This is excellent engine/wing integration. (Yes, done as well on the MAX). This means more range.

So do you think that it's possible that this aircraft had 17 tons of payload while achieving an average hourly fuel burn of 2.3 tons (26 tons minus something left after landing divided by 11 hours)? I'm just trying to figure out if our understanding about the payload figure is correct. What would be the fuel burn difference if the take off weight was say 80 tons rather than about 93 tons as we assume it was?

I think payload was a little lighter, but I'm just being my normal profit it to me skeptical self. But a 2021 Pratt powered A321LR will have the range with 17T.

tomcat wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

tomcat wrote:

So do you think that it's possible that this aircraft had 17 tons of payload while achieving an average hourly fuel burn of 2.3 tons (26 tons minus something left after landing divided by 11 hours)? I'm just trying to figure out if our understanding about the payload figure is correct. What would be the fuel burn difference if the take off weight was say 80 tons rather than about 93 tons as we assume it was?

I think payload was a little lighter, but I'm just being my normal profit it to me skeptical self. But a 2021 Pratt powered A321LR will have the range with 17T.

Indeed, in the meantime I've posted a link to an article from which I've estimated that each of these simulated passenger weights about 30 kg when including the related flight test equipment. So the payload on this flight would be 5 tons for the 162 simulated passenger plus say 2 tons for the real humans on board, ie 7 tons in total. If these figures are correct, then the TOW for this flight was below 85 tons. What I'm simply curious to know is the impact on the range if the take-off weight would have been 97 tons. Airbus is actually planning another test flight that will take-off at 97 tons. Hopefully, they will also communicate the still-air distance that this flight will have covered.

fsabo wrote:

tomcat wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I think payload was a little lighter, but I'm just being my normal profit it to me skeptical self. But a 2021 Pratt powered A321LR will have the range with 17T.

Indeed, in the meantime I've posted a link to an article from which I've estimated that each of these simulated passenger weights about 30 kg when including the related flight test equipment. So the payload on this flight would be 5 tons for the 162 simulated passenger plus say 2 tons for the real humans on board, ie 7 tons in total. If these figures are correct, then the TOW for this flight was below 85 tons. What I'm simply curious to know is the impact on the range if the take-off weight would have been 97 tons. Airbus is actually planning another test flight that will take-off at 97 tons. Hopefully, they will also communicate the still-air distance that this flight will have covered.

So you know there was no additional weight on board? Just 30kg per "passenger" was carried?

tomcat wrote:

No, I don't, that's why I've added "If these figures are correct". But I tend to believe that if the payload on this flight was actually 17 tons or so, Airbus would have just said so. We can also think that since the purpose of this flight was to test the cabin systems over a long flight, Airbus may have maximized the duration of the flight rather than maximizing the payload.

tomcat wrote:

fsabo wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Indeed, in the meantime I've posted a link to an article from which I've estimated that each of these simulated passenger weights about 30 kg when including the related flight test equipment. So the payload on this flight would be 5 tons for the 162 simulated passenger plus say 2 tons for the real humans on board, ie 7 tons in total. If these figures are correct, then the TOW for this flight was below 85 tons. What I'm simply curious to know is the impact on the range if the take-off weight would have been 97 tons. Airbus is actually planning another test flight that will take-off at 97 tons. Hopefully, they will also communicate the still-air distance that this flight will have covered.

So you know there was no additional weight on board? Just 30kg per "passenger" was carried?

No, I don't, that's why I've added "If these figures are correct". But I tend to believe that if the payload on this flight was actually 17 tons or so, Airbus would have just said so. We can also think that since the purpose of this flight was to test the cabin systems over a long flight, Airbus may have maximized the duration of the flight rather than maximizing the payload.

StTim wrote:

tomcat wrote:

fsabo wrote:

So you know there was no additional weight on board? Just 30kg per "passenger" was carried?

No, I don't, that's why I've added "If these figures are correct". But I tend to believe that if the payload on this flight was actually 17 tons or so, Airbus would have just said so. We can also think that since the purpose of this flight was to test the cabin systems over a long flight, Airbus may have maximized the duration of the flight rather than maximizing the payload.

Airbus have said it was an equivalent of 160 (or so I cannot remember the exact figure) passenger load. No w they would be really playing fast and loose if that was 160 adolescents rather than the standard payload per passenger that is used - to include baggage.