Page 1 of 2

A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:31 pm
by BenflysDTW
Hey everyone,
I thought that this deserved its own thread.
I’m not too familiar with the engineering of aircraft, as I mostly research airline networks and economics.

However I wanted to discuss this as well as the decision airlines make between the LR and XLR.

The main disadvantage of the XLR is the delivery date, as airlines will have to wait at least 4 years until delivery. The LR can be delivered sooner.

Some basic specs are as you may already know are 180-240 seats
4,700 nm/8,700nkm of range
No auxiliary fuel tanks needed as the extra range will be built into the structure of the plane. (American Airlines Vodcast)

Current launch customer: MEA

Current Orders/transfers from existing orders I may not have all the transfers listed.

American Airlines: 50 (30 transfer from A321neo, 20 new)
JetBlue 13 (all transfer from A321neo)
Cebu Pacific: 10
ALC: 27
Qantas: 36
Wizz Air (Indigo) 20
Jetsmart Chile (Indigo) 12
Frontier (Indigo) 18
MEA 4
Saudi 15
IAG + options
Aer Lingus 8
Iberia 6

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:34 pm
by Polot
As I said in another thread (I think the AA one) the A321LR is now a dead product walking. Airlines will take it for its earlier availability now but as soon as the XLR is available there is very little upside to getting an LR over the XLR. Many current LRs will probably get downgraded back to normal Neo use with XLRs replacing them.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:37 pm
by enilria
I'm not sure what the discussion is.

The XLR is also more expensive. I'd say $4-8m if I had to guess. It also probably comes with a thrust bump which means the engines have a lower Mean Time Between Overhaul which means higher operating costs. Also, I'd assume there are extra fuel tanks which have negative weight, balance, cargo, and bag impacts.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:07 pm
by BenflysDTW
enilria wrote:
I'm not sure what the discussion is.

The XLR is also more expensive. I'd say $4-8m if I had to guess. It also probably comes with a thrust bump which means the engines have a lower Mean Time Between Overhaul which means higher operating costs. Also, I'd assume there are extra fuel tanks which have negative weight, balance, cargo, and bag impacts.


As for the extra fuel tanks, I just used what Robert Isom said in the vodcast, as he pleased that no bin space would be sacrificed with the XLR. Although this can be debated.

This discussion will serve as a comparison discussion between the LR/XLR and which plane is better for an airline.
If Frontier doesn’t do any long haul adventures with the A321XLR, the plane would be meaningless as the A321/neo could easily handle the transcons and any future Hawaii service. (Just an example.)

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:27 pm
by arcticcruiser
BenflysDTW wrote:
enilria wrote:
I'm not sure what the discussion is.

The XLR is also more expensive. I'd say $4-8m if I had to guess. It also probably comes with a thrust bump which means the engines have a lower Mean Time Between Overhaul which means higher operating costs. Also, I'd assume there are extra fuel tanks which have negative weight, balance, cargo, and bag impacts.


As for the extra fuel tanks, I just used what Robert Isom said in the vodcast, as he pleased that no bin space would be sacrificed with the XLR. Although this can be debated.



This discussion will serve as a comparison discussion between the LR/XLR and which plane is better for an airline.
If Frontier doesn’t do any long haul adventures with the A321XLR, the plane would be meaningless as the A321/neo could easily handle the transcons and any future Hawaii service. (Just an example.)


One more XLR thread. There is bin space sacrificed. The XLR has space for 8 cans whereas a 321 without ACTs has space for 10.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:29 pm
by BenflysDTW
arcticcruiser wrote:
BenflysDTW wrote:
enilria wrote:
I'm not sure what the discussion is.

The XLR is also more expensive. I'd say $4-8m if I had to guess. It also probably comes with a thrust bump which means the engines have a lower Mean Time Between Overhaul which means higher operating costs. Also, I'd assume there are extra fuel tanks which have negative weight, balance, cargo, and bag impacts.


As for the extra fuel tanks, I just used what Robert Isom said in the vodcast, as he pleased that no bin space would be sacrificed with the XLR. Although this can be debated.



This discussion will serve as a comparison discussion between the LR/XLR and which plane is better for an airline.
If Frontier doesn’t do any long haul adventures with the A321XLR, the plane would be meaningless as the A321/neo could easily handle the transcons and any future Hawaii service. (Just an example.)


One more XLR thread. There is bin space sacrificed. The XLR has space for 8 cans whereas a 321 without ACTs has space for 10.


I was comparing the bin space to the LR not the neo/ceo. Unless that’s what you meant.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:15 pm
by tomcat
arcticcruiser wrote:
BenflysDTW wrote:
enilria wrote:
I'm not sure what the discussion is.

The XLR is also more expensive. I'd say $4-8m if I had to guess. It also probably comes with a thrust bump which means the engines have a lower Mean Time Between Overhaul which means higher operating costs. Also, I'd assume there are extra fuel tanks which have negative weight, balance, cargo, and bag impacts.


As for the extra fuel tanks, I just used what Robert Isom said in the vodcast, as he pleased that no bin space would be sacrificed with the XLR. Although this can be debated.



This discussion will serve as a comparison discussion between the LR/XLR and which plane is better for an airline.
If Frontier doesn’t do any long haul adventures with the A321XLR, the plane would be meaningless as the A321/neo could easily handle the transcons and any future Hawaii service. (Just an example.)


One more XLR thread. There is bin space sacrificed. The XLR has space for 8 cans whereas a 321 without ACTs has space for 10.


With its expanded internal fuel capacity, the XLR can tank more internal fuel than the LR fitted with 3 "cans". On top of that, the XLR can still be fitted with 1 can in its fwd hold, bringing its max fuel capacity to about 39000 liters of fuel (31 tons). If one needs a range of about 3500nm or more, then the XLR will be lighter to operate with at least as much cargo space than the XLR.

No thrust bump will be required for the XLR as it will have redesigned flaps (which will become single slotted) precisely to avoid this thrust bump and maintain its runway performance.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:22 pm
by Revelation
A321XLR: The RCT will hold 12,900 l (3,400 US gal) of fuel, the equivalent of four 3,121 l (824 US gal) current ACTs, while it weighs like one and takes up the space of two; a forward ACT can also be fitted if necessary.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ily#A321LR

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:40 pm
by tomcat
Some more info about the redesigned inboard flap:

the intention with the switch to the single-slotted inboard flaps on the A321XLR is to reduce weight and complexity without exceeding the V-speeds of the original A321.


we've been able to design a single-slotted flap that's as efficient as a double-slotted design and gives a similar kind of performance globally, because it also saves some weight.


For take-off especially, we're reducing drag in the second-segment climb.


Another new feature being introduced on the XLR's flap system is the ability to set the surfaces at intermediate positions, depending on operating conditions.


Airbus is yet to decide whether to adopt the revised design as a block change for all A321neo variants when it is introduced in 2023.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-how-airbus-is-redesigning-the-a321xlr-hig-459156/

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:40 pm
by airbazar
Polot wrote:
As I said in another thread (I think the AA one) the A321LR is now a dead product walking.

In marketing only because I'm convinced the LR will become the baseline A321NEO, where the third fuel tank is just an option. We're nearly there already as from 2020 the baseline A321NEO will really be an A321ACF. Making the baseline be an LR will be the next step after that just in time for the release of the XLR into commercial service.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:41 am
by astuteman
airbazar wrote:
Polot wrote:
As I said in another thread (I think the AA one) the A321LR is now a dead product walking.

In marketing only because I'm convinced the LR will become the baseline A321NEO, where the third fuel tank is just an option. We're nearly there already as from 2020 the baseline A321NEO will really be an A321ACF. Making the baseline be an LR will be the next step after that just in time for the release of the XLR into commercial service.


Agreed. It will become just another WV of the A321NEO

Rgds

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:59 am
by LDRA
The new trailing edge flaps may also serve purpose to move wing center of lift afterwards.

Current A320LR does not appears to be able to configure for two ACTs in the after hold, without a third ACT taking up two container positions in forward hold. This implies CoG limitation with two after ACTs installed

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:14 am
by RJMAZ
I am sure by 2025 the XLR will become the only A321 model produced. There is really no reason to keep the original A321NEO neo built as nearly all operators have one or more ACT fitted.

If the XLR has a simpler flap design there might be a cost saving. It will probably get offered as a paper derate to the original 93T with the engines having more TBO.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:15 am
by T4thH
astuteman wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Polot wrote:
As I said in another thread (I think the AA one) the A321LR is now a dead product walking.

In marketing only because I'm convinced the LR will become the baseline A321NEO, where the third fuel tank is just an option. We're nearly there already as from 2020 the baseline A321NEO will really be an A321ACF. Making the baseline be an LR will be the next step after that just in time for the release of the XLR into commercial service.


Agreed. It will become just another WV of the A321NEO

Rgds


I also agree. A A321 LR is just a standard A321 Neo with a minor modification/preparation for to add a 3rd ACT instead of only two. These can be exchanged/build out/in in around 8h over night (by an average team). Why this little add on shall not get standard? Additional production cost shall be low to negible.
What would like to know, are these ACT all identical, so they can be exchanged between all three positions, or is for every ACT Position another ACT Version needed?

I am sure by 2025 the XLR will become the only A321 model produced. There is really no reason to keep the original A321NEO neo built as nearly all operators have one or more ACT fitted.

If the XLR has a simpler flap design there might be a cost saving. It will probably get offered as a paper derate to the original 93T with the engines having more TBO.

Sorry, but no. Some features of the Xlr will be implemented,in the regular A321 family but the Xlr itself will not get the standard A321 version. The Xlr is a niche bird, the upgrades (new fuel tank e.g.) will have a limited to no benefit for the standard use of an A321 and many disadvantages.
The advantage for on type of use is the disadvantage for all others.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:40 am
by tealnz
Any A32X operators thinking they might have a future need to do long-haul will just go for the XLR for range and flexibility. Flexible MTOW certificates allow them to minimise airways charges. OEW lower than the LR because no ACTs. Extra cargo space compared to LR so more flexibility on regular routes. Simpler inboard flaps. Lower maintenance without the ACTs and plumbing. Higher resale at 12 years. What's not to like?

And the committed short-haulers can just go for the vanilla 321neo.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:48 am
by tealnz
T4thH wrote:
Sorry, but no. Some features of the Xlr will be implemented,in the regular A321 family but the Xlr itself will not get the standard A321 version. The Xlr is a niche bird, the upgrades (new fuel tank e.g.) will have a limited to no benefit for the standard use of an A321 and many disadvantages.
The advantage for on type of use is the disadvantage for all others.

Can't imagine what the disadvantages would be apart from a higher capital cost (because a more capable/longer range/higher weight variant will always cost you more). Everything else is a plus. Simpler mechanicals. Lighter OEW. More hold space for any routes requiring more than two ACTs worth of fuel. More reliable on transcontinental or longer routes (because the tankage and higher MTWO are built in and let operators just tank up to whatever is required for that route on that day). What am I missing? Are you saying Airbus has hoodwinked a bunch of airline execs in Paris? :shakehead:

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:10 am
by astuteman
tealnz wrote:
T4thH wrote:
Sorry, but no. Some features of the Xlr will be implemented,in the regular A321 family but the Xlr itself will not get the standard A321 version. The Xlr is a niche bird, the upgrades (new fuel tank e.g.) will have a limited to no benefit for the standard use of an A321 and many disadvantages.
The advantage for on type of use is the disadvantage for all others.

Can't imagine what the disadvantages would be apart from a higher capital cost (because a more capable/longer range/higher weight variant will always cost you more). Everything else is a plus. Simpler mechanicals. Lighter OEW. More hold space for any routes requiring more than two ACTs worth of fuel. More reliable on transcontinental or longer routes (because the tankage and higher MTWO are built in and let operators just tank up to whatever is required for that route on that day). What am I missing? Are you saying Airbus has hoodwinked a bunch of airline execs in Paris? :shakehead:


The primary disadvantage I see in the XLR vs the base NEO is for those airlines especially LCC's who don't need any ACT's and value the hold space.
For those airlines, the RCT just gets in the way.
The XLR won't be lighter than a vanilla A321NEO with no ACT's
It will also have as a minimum bespoke landing gear.

They're not big downsides, but big enough to keep the current vanilla NEO as is IMO.

I anticipate that the new super effective single slotted flaps will make it across the A321 fleet eventually - I see no reason why they wouldn't. Better lift, lighter, and production commonality makes this inevitable.

Rgds

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:27 am
by astuteman
tomcat wrote:
Some more info about the redesigned inboard flap:

the intention with the switch to the single-slotted inboard flaps on the A321XLR is to reduce weight and complexity without exceeding the V-speeds of the original A321.


we've been able to design a single-slotted flap that's as efficient as a double-slotted design and gives a similar kind of performance globally, because it also saves some weight.


For take-off especially, we're reducing drag in the second-segment climb.


Another new feature being introduced on the XLR's flap system is the ability to set the surfaces at intermediate positions, depending on operating conditions.


Airbus is yet to decide whether to adopt the revised design as a block change for all A321neo variants when it is introduced in 2023.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-how-airbus-is-redesigning-the-a321xlr-hig-459156/


Good article. Thanks.
it prompted me to look back at the Feb 19 ACAP for the A321


If you look at the take-off performance charts, the A321CEO take off weight limitation at 0 ft and ISA shows
12 000ft at 100t TOW for the CFM engines,
and
13 000ft at 100t TOW for the IAE engines.

Both I believe are without sharklets (for some reason - not sure why they are extended to 100t either, but it makes a useful comparison)

The chart for the A321NEO at 0ft and ISA shows
9 000ft at 100t TOW for the CFM Leap.

This I think reflect the significant impact the sharklets have had on field performance (the A320 ACAP follows the same pattern).
It is also representative of the field performance we can expect from the XLR (which I understand is around 101t)
The new flaps should if anything improve on that

Rgds

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:50 am
by Max Q
Is the 4700 NM range for the XLR only achievable with the additional forward tank ?

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:26 am
by astuteman
Max Q wrote:
Is the 4700 NM range for the XLR only achievable with the additional forward tank ?


Extrapolating from the max fuel ranges in the other configurations, I think that is correct.

Rgds

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:15 am
by flee
RJMAZ wrote:
I am sure by 2025 the XLR will become the only A321 model produced. There is really no reason to keep the original A321NEO neo built as nearly all operators have one or more ACT fitted.

If the XLR has a simpler flap design there might be a cost saving. It will probably get offered as a paper derate to the original 93T with the engines having more TBO.

Not all airlines buy the A321 for the XLR range - some will need the 240 seat capacity. Some may need a bit more range with 240 seats, so they get the LR. Yet some others will need even longer range with 240 seats - they get the XLR. Airbus is only trying to sell more planes. It would be silly just to offer one version.

The revised flap design is for two main reasons - maintain the takeoff performance of its siblings and to save some weight.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:28 am
by Dave05
So revenue generating cargo will be out of the question for the xlr?

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:42 am
by BenflysDTW
Dave05 wrote:
So revenue generating cargo will be out of the question for the xlr?

I don’t think so completely, as American seemed pretty excited about it. Although I don’t know how many cans of cargo/mail this plane can support, assuming that 8 are available from what the others have said above. Cargo was mentioned in the vodcast, which can be viewed here:

http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/20 ... fault.aspx

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:14 am
by 350helmi
enilria wrote:
I'm not sure what the discussion is.

The XLR is also more expensive. I'd say $4-8m if I had to guess. It also probably comes with a thrust bump which means the engines have a lower Mean Time Between Overhaul which means higher operating costs. Also, I'd assume there are extra fuel tanks which have negative weight, balance, cargo, and bag impacts.


In the launch it was said that there is an option to have 1 RCT in the XLR and that engine thrust would be the same as the current NEO (wing trailing edge and flap config modification allowing this). So not much negative to the extra fuel volume, and infact more cargo space than the LR (the bigger center tank takes up the space of 2 RCT whilst holding fuel for 3).

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:27 am
by tommy1808
astuteman wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Is the 4700 NM range for the XLR only achievable with the additional forward tank ?


Extrapolating from the max fuel ranges in the other configurations, I think that is correct.

Rgds


Didn't the "stock" A321LR fly 4750nm air distance with simulated 160 passenger + 11 crew load, and the XLR has some 2.5t more fuel without the extra ACT to begin with?

Still air range should be more like 5000nm with that kind of load...

Best regards
Thomas

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:29 am
by tommy1808
arcticcruiser wrote:
One more XLR thread. There is bin space sacrificed. The XLR has space for 8 cans whereas a 321 without ACTs has space for 10.


I think most A321 left the factory with one ACT installed, plenty fly with two.

Best regards
Thomas

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:01 am
by keesje
It seems the XLR is, apart from more range, implementing improvements valuable for any A321.
To make money on the capabilities, Airbus will probably create paper versions for different MTOW's again.
A lower MTOW / engine requirements improves time on wing / MRO costs if you never fly them longer then e.g. 3 hours.

In production they will probaby go for standardisation over time. Airbus is implementing some improvements engineering were probably sitting on for some time.

The restvalue / flexibility advantages the XLR offers over the NEO offer benefits for owners (e.g. leasing companies), if you can upgrade to a higher MTOW later on.

Image

:arrow: More importantly, I think we this week we saw the kick-off of legacy carriers jumping on a new medium haul / low capacity train.
:arrow: The cost & risks are limitted for them and they apparently concluded this is going to happen.
:arrow: They see serious opportunities and serious threaths and invest accordingly, not to miss the boat.

I can e.g. AA use their XLR's to open up flights into major destination in Europe (middle/south) Europe, that didn't justify daily direct WB flights so far. You have to do at least daily to be taken seriously for business travel. Same for e.g. Qantas, they can now cover a bigger part of Asia on a daily, direct flight basis. They can reach more places in India, Thailand, Japan.

:arrow: Now it's no longer theories, expectations, visions. Big boys put their money on it and pencilled in the flights. Adversaries will respond. :stirthepot:

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:18 am
by KFLLCFII
keesje wrote:
It seems the XLR is, apart from more range, implementing improvements valuable for any A321.
To make money on the capabilities, Airbus will probably create paper versions for different MTOW's again.
A lower MTOW / engine requirements improves time on wing / MRO costs if you never fly them longer then e.g. 3 hours.

In production they will probaby go for standardisation over time. Airbus is implementing some improvements engineering were probably sitting on for some time.

The restvalue / flexibility advantages the XLR offers over the NEO offer benefits for owners (e.g. leasing companies), if you can upgrade to a higher MTOW later on.

Image

:arrow: More importantly, I think we this week we saw the kick-off of legacy carriers jumping on a new medium haul / low capacity train.
:arrow: The cost & risks are limitted for them and they apparently concluded this is going to happen.
:arrow: They see serious opportunities and serious threaths and invest accordingly, not to miss the boat.

I can e.g. AA use their XLR's to open up flights into major destination in Europe (middle/south) Europe, that didn't justify daily direct WB flights so far. You have to do at least daily to be taken seriously for business travel. Same for e.g. Qantas, they can now cover a bigger part of Asia on a daily, direct flight basis. They can reach more places in India, Thailand, Japan.

:arrow: Now it's no longer theories, expectations, visions. Big boys put their money on it and pencilled in the flights. Adversaries will respond. :stirthepot:


But can it haul fish?

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:10 am
by astuteman
tommy1808 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Is the 4700 NM range for the XLR only achievable with the additional forward tank ?


Extrapolating from the max fuel ranges in the other configurations, I think that is correct.

Rgds


Didn't the "stock" A321LR fly 4750nm air distance with simulated 160 passenger + 11 crew load, and the XLR has some 2.5t more fuel without the extra ACT to begin with?

Still air range should be more like 5000nm with that kind of load...

Best regards
Thomas


If you look at the Jan 2019 ACAP on the Airbus website, it has a range/payload chart for the A321LR with 3 x ACT's.
That graph has a "maximum fuel" asymptote at exactly 4 000Nm and 18t payload.
To get to 4 750Nm range, payload has to drop to 6t on the R/P chart.
That 4 750Nm sector had to have had a fairly strong tailwind, if it was transporting a 16t load - Airbus' own ACAP says it won't do that in still air

Extrapolating the A321LR's ACAP range/payload chart, and factoring by the ratio of fuel capacity..
I get the "maximum fuel" load asymptote for the XLR with no ACT at roughly 4 450Nm and a 19.5t payload
I get the "maximum fuel" load asymptote for the XLR with 1 x ACT at roughly 4 850Nm and a 16.5t payload

The 4 700Nm "nominal" range then sits about 18t payload on the MTOW segment of the range/payload chart, exactly as you would expect.

Rgds

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:34 am
by tommy1808
astuteman wrote:
If you look at the Jan 2019 ACAP on the Airbus website, it has a range/payload chart for the A321LR with 3 x ACT's.
That graph has a "maximum fuel" asymptote at exactly 4 000Nm and 18t payload.


I know. Airbus doesn´t really update its public ACAP upon improvements.

That 4 750Nm sector had to have had a fairly strong tailwind, if it was transporting a 16t load - Airbus' own ACAP says it won't do that in still air


That is ESAD, GC distance was 41xx NM with a strong headwind.

best regards
Thomas

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:35 am
by Okcflyer
Has the LR’s gear become the bog standard? I recall it needed strengthening to get to 97T.

I suspect the 101T XLR gear is using higher performance materials and has a small design tweak and as such will remain a low volume product just for the XLR series. Doesn’t make sense to introduce a new higher cost and eight production standard that doesn’t support the in-service units, therefore making both more expensive moving forward. Tires, rims — these aren’t the issues — it’s the main structural pieces, bearings, and linkages.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:37 am
by sabby
keesje wrote:
It seems the XLR is, apart from more range, implementing improvements valuable for any A321.
To make money on the capabilities, Airbus will probably create paper versions for different MTOW's again.
A lower MTOW / engine requirements improves time on wing / MRO costs if you never fly them longer then e.g. 3 hours.

In production they will probaby go for standardisation over time. Airbus is implementing some improvements engineering were probably sitting on for some time.

The restvalue / flexibility advantages the XLR offers over the NEO offer benefits for owners (e.g. leasing companies), if you can upgrade to a higher MTOW later on.



So, are you saying all A321neo would have built in RCT and Airbus would just activate/de-activate it and paper de-rate the MTOW for non XLR ? I doubt it as that'd increase the empty weight (RCT |and trailing edge/flaps, heavier landing gear). The advantage of LR model is that it is basically the vanilla A321neo with 4 ACT and higher MTOW. If you don't need the range, you don't add ACTs - no additional weight.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:47 am
by tommy1808
sabby wrote:
So, are you saying all A321neo would have built in RCT and Airbus would just activate/de-activate it and paper de-rate the MTOW for non XLR ? I doubt it as that'd increase the empty weight (RCT |and trailing edge/flaps, heavier landing gear). The advantage of LR model is that it is basically the vanilla A321neo with 4 ACT and higher MTOW.


3 ACT and higher MTOW.

If you don't need the range, you don't add ACTs - no additional weight.


most airlines fly around 1 ACT all the time anyways.... so it is really just 1LD3 container position in question. If they made it standard, it would be because customers are fine with it.

best regards
Thomas

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:08 am
by tealnz
sabby wrote:
So, are you saying all A321neo would have built in RCT and Airbus would just activate/de-activate it and paper de-rate the MTOW for non XLR ? I doubt it as that'd increase the empty weight (RCT |and trailing edge/flaps, heavier landing gear). The advantage of LR model is that it is basically the vanilla A321neo with 4 ACT and higher MTOW. If you don't need the range, you don't add ACTs - no additional weight.

No. For purely short-haul operators the slightly lighter version with no RCT and no ACTs (ie with the full 5+5 hold spaces available) will be the way to go. And there might still be sales of the standard neo with one ACT. The more interesting question is how long Airbus continue to offer an LR – that market should be overtaken by the simpler/lighter/more flexible XLR.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:20 am
by tommy1808
tealnz wrote:
sabby wrote:
So, are you saying all A321neo would have built in RCT and Airbus would just activate/de-activate it and paper de-rate the MTOW for non XLR ? I doubt it as that'd increase the empty weight (RCT |and trailing edge/flaps, heavier landing gear). The advantage of LR model is that it is basically the vanilla A321neo with 4 ACT and higher MTOW. If you don't need the range, you don't add ACTs - no additional weight.

No. For purely short-haul operators the slightly lighter version with no RCT and no ACTs (ie with the full 5+5 hold spaces available) will be the way to go.


How many A321-200 are flying without any ACT at all?

best regards
Thomas

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:35 am
by Revelation
astuteman wrote:
The primary disadvantage I see in the XLR vs the base NEO is for those airlines especially LCC's who don't need any ACT's and value the hold space.
For those airlines, the RCT just gets in the way.
The XLR won't be lighter than a vanilla A321NEO with no ACT's
It will also have as a minimum bespoke landing gear.

They're not big downsides, but big enough to keep the current vanilla NEO as is IMO.

I agree, there will always be someone happy with the excellent ~3500nm of the vanilla NEO.

Someone pointed out in our XLR challenges thread in tech ops that they still are filling A321ceo orders! :-)

astuteman wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Is the 4700 NM range for the XLR only achievable with the additional forward tank ?


Extrapolating from the max fuel ranges in the other configurations, I think that is correct.

Interesting!

tommy1808 wrote:
arcticcruiser wrote:
One more XLR thread. There is bin space sacrificed. The XLR has space for 8 cans whereas a 321 without ACTs has space for 10.


I think most A321 left the factory with one ACT installed, plenty fly with two.

Very few leave with three, due to lack of space for cargo.

Therefore it would seem very few XLR will leave with forward ACT.

astuteman wrote:
If you look at the Jan 2019 ACAP on the Airbus website, it has a range/payload chart for the A321LR with 3 x ACT's.
That graph has a "maximum fuel" asymptote at exactly 4 000Nm and 18t payload.
To get to 4 750Nm range, payload has to drop to 6t on the R/P chart.
That 4 750Nm sector had to have had a fairly strong tailwind, if it was transporting a 16t load - Airbus' own ACAP says it won't do that in still air

Extrapolating the A321LR's ACAP range/payload chart, and factoring by the ratio of fuel capacity..
I get the "maximum fuel" load asymptote for the XLR with no ACT at roughly 4 450Nm and a 19.5t payload
I get the "maximum fuel" load asymptote for the XLR with 1 x ACT at roughly 4 850Nm and a 16.5t payload

The 4 700Nm "nominal" range then sits about 18t payload on the MTOW segment of the range/payload chart, exactly as you would expect.

It seems it won't be nominal to use the forward ACT so it seems the line I've bolded will be the nominal figures for XLR.

Using a similar reduction from ACAP, it seems the nominal XLR will have 4300nm nominal range, nominally ( :-) ).

KFLLCFII wrote:
But can it haul fish?

You win the Internet! :biggrin:

Quick, someone call Iceland!

We've finally found a viable replacement for their aging 757s! :old:

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:41 am
by tealnz
astuteman wrote:
The primary disadvantage I see in the XLR vs the base NEO is for those airlines especially LCC's who don't need any ACT's and value the hold space.
For those airlines, the RCT just gets in the way.
The XLR won't be lighter than a vanilla A321NEO with no ACT's
It will also have as a minimum bespoke landing gear.

They're not big downsides, but big enough to keep the current vanilla NEO as is IMO.

If that's the question I don't disagree – I said upthread:

And the committed short-haulers can just go for the vanilla 321neo.

But T4thH seemed to me to be signalling there were real issues with the XLR configuration for all but long-haul routes:

The Xlr is a niche bird, the upgrades (new fuel tank e.g.) will have a limited to no benefit for the standard use of an A321 and many disadvantages. The advantage for on type of use is the disadvantage for all others.

That may be true for those airlines just wanting a dedicated short-hauler. But they are not the market for the XLR. For a bunch of airlines wanting a medium and long-haul ability I don't expect any sense of penalty at all. Global fleet numbers will take the undercarriage out of the bespoke category sooner or later, and lower cycles on medium/long haul will moderate any gear maintenance cost impacts. Above all through the eyes of an operator this will still be a simple airframe, offering schedule certainty on extreme wind days in ways the LR can't, standard maintenance, less plumbing and unusable fuel to lug around, more hold space than an LR... plus flexibility to run two-hour sectors economically between long-haul runs if required.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:46 am
by tommy1808
Revelation wrote:
Very few leave with three, due to lack of space for cargo.


Isn´t it more a weight thing? Not much point hauling the 3rd ACT around if you can´t fill it up once the cabin starts to anyways.

Therefore it would seem very few XLR will leave with forward ACT.


In a 160 ~180 seat long-haul configuration they won´t need it for bags, unless going to Brasil :D

Using a similar reduction from ACAP, it seems the nominal XLR will have 4300nm nominal range, nominally ( :-) ).


Since Airbus advertises the bog standard A321neoLR with 20t [email protected] range that doesn´t really make sense considering that the XLR doesn´t haul 1.2 ton of ACT (+unuseable fuel) around and has fuel for an extra hour of flight. And we know the LR took 16t (plus some excess of crew) over 4750nm without declaring a fuel emergency approachung Toulouse ...

best regards
Thomas

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:52 am
by Revelation
tommy1808 wrote:
Since Airbus advertises the bog standard A321neoLR with 20t [email protected] range

"Advertise" usually means "most flattering value possible" which means ACAP i.e. still air range as opposed to our "nominal" reduced values above.

So, which is this value?

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:57 am
by tomcat
Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
If you look at the Jan 2019 ACAP on the Airbus website, it has a range/payload chart for the A321LR with 3 x ACT's.
That graph has a "maximum fuel" asymptote at exactly 4 000Nm and 18t payload.
To get to 4 750Nm range, payload has to drop to 6t on the R/P chart.
That 4 750Nm sector had to have had a fairly strong tailwind, if it was transporting a 16t load - Airbus' own ACAP says it won't do that in still air

Extrapolating the A321LR's ACAP range/payload chart, and factoring by the ratio of fuel capacity..
I get the "maximum fuel" load asymptote for the XLR with no ACT at roughly 4 450Nm and a 19.5t payload
I get the "maximum fuel" load asymptote for the XLR with 1 x ACT at roughly 4 850Nm and a 16.5t payload

The 4 700Nm "nominal" range then sits about 18t payload on the MTOW segment of the range/payload chart, exactly as you would expect.

It seems it won't be nominal to use the forward ACT so it seems the line I've bolded will be the nominal figures for XLR.

Using a similar reduction from ACAP, it seems the nominal XLR will have 4300nm nominal range, nominally ( :-) ).


Considering that the nominal range of the XLR with one ACT is 4700nm, I would expect that without the ACT it would still be good for about 4400nm rather than 4300nm. I'd just don't think the you can get 400nm range (that is 4700nm minus 4300nm) out of one ACT when the XLR operates close to its MTOW. That's also more in line with the fact that compared to a LR fitted with 3 ACTs, the XLR has:
- a 10% greater internal fuel capacity than the LR fitted with 3 ACT (and the difference in terms of usable fuel might be even greater)
- a lighter dry weight
Also, by the 2023 vintage we can (nominally) expect that at least one engine PIP will have been incorporated.

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 pm
by Kilopond
astuteman wrote:
tomcat wrote:
][...]
The chart for the A321NEO at 0ft and ISA shows
9 000ft at 100t TOW for the CFM Leap.[...]


This might still improve because Pratt & Wittney have not yet delivered the more powerful engine they once promised. They started testing the PW1135G-JM back in 2016 but right now that thing is not even mentioned on their websites. :sarcastic:

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:28 pm
by Armadillo1
Kilopond wrote:
This might still improve because Pratt & Wittney have not yet delivered the more powerful engine they once promised. They started testing the PW1135G-JM back in 2016 but right now that thing is not even mentioned on their websites.


why to use bigger engines? to burn more fuel and got less range?

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:33 pm
by tomcat
Armadillo1 wrote:
Kilopond wrote:
This might still improve because Pratt & Wittney have not yet delivered the more powerful engine they once promised. They started testing the PW1135G-JM back in 2016 but right now that thing is not even mentioned on their websites.


why to use bigger engines? to burn more fuel and got less range?


Maybe to please some customers ;-):
Airbus intends that the A321XLR will be offered with the same engine thrust values as today's LR. However, Air Lease executive chairman Steve Udvar-Hazy tells FlightGlobal that he is pushing the engine OEMs for "a little more thrust".



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-how-airbus-is-redesigning-the-a321xlr-hig-459156/

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:35 pm
by tommy1808
Revelation wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Since Airbus advertises the bog standard A321neoLR with 20t [email protected] range

"Advertise" usually means "most flattering value possible" which means ACAP i.e. still air range as opposed to our "nominal" reduced values above.

So, which is this value?


That is a bit of a problem..... we know that the public ACAPs are somewhat below actual abilities due to not really being kept up to date (see A350 ACAP, where the ULR range is just tagged on the same ACAP PR Chart, despite the aircraft burning less fuel with the newer wingtips). Same for Boeing, i didn´t check for myself, but i remember reading on anet that the PER-LHR flight was beyond ACAP capabilities when they started flying it.

And we know that the A321LR did fly a mission with parameters roughly in line with its marketing numbers, but not in line with the ACAP...... 4t less payload on board, 550 nm further on a real flight plan, with an aircraft that is still fuel volume limited....incidentally the XLR has somewhere less dead tank weight flying around and even more fuel volume available, so i am not convinced the 4700nm are with the optional ACT. It would be somewhat odd that the 4t heavier plane needed all of that weight for more fuel to fly what the A321LR already demonstrated without it for just 2t more payload..

Airbus press release says " In particular, the new optimised RCT holds more fuel than several optional Additional Centre Tanks (ACTs) did previously, while taking up less space in the cargo hold – thus freeing-up underfloor volume for additional cargo and baggage on long range routes."

with the forward ACT installed there is no additional volume for bags and cargo.And since Airbus list that tank as "optional", but no * leading to smallprint "including optional ACT" i am fairly convinced that that the 4700nm is without.

The A321 Corporate Jet was also advertised by Airbus with 4200nm range when the 321 was only certified for two ACT (yes, much lighter loaded, but also 2400Kg less fuel volume). .... reducing payload doesn´t help all that much once the tanks are full.

best regards
Thomas

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:39 pm
by Armadillo1
tomcat wrote:
Maybe to please some customers ;-):
Airbus intends that the A321XLR will be offered with the same engine thrust values as today's LR. However, Air Lease executive chairman Steve Udvar-Hazy tells FlightGlobal that he is pushing the engine OEMs for "a little more thrust".



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-how-airbus-is-redesigning-the-a321xlr-hig-459156/

i read this but question still exists. if Aibus sayd takeoff perfomance remain same, no need to bigger engine until you need new routes (hot&high?)

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:58 pm
by f4f3a
I wonder what the initial cruise altitude will be at 102t ? I remember being on a flight from pfo in a non shark a321 and initial cruise was only 26 or 28k ft .

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:03 pm
by Armadillo1
f4f3a wrote:
I wonder what the initial cruise altitude will be at 102t ? I remember being on a flight from pfo in a non shark a321 and initial cruise was only 26 or 28k ft .

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 2#20f9baab
this 321N flight shows initial jump to 32k

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:07 pm
by tommy1808
f4f3a wrote:
I wonder what the initial cruise altitude will be at 102t ? I remember being on a flight from pfo in a non shark a321 and initial cruise was only 26 or 28k ft .


Cruise that low should pretty much always be to stay below headwinds, the A321 at MTOW doesn't climb all that high before some fuel burned of, but FL320 should always be attainable when it makes sense.

Best regards
Thomas

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:30 pm
by sabby
Revelation wrote:
[

KFLLCFII wrote:
But can it haul fish?

You win the Internet! :biggrin:

Quick, someone call Iceland!

We've finally found a viable replacement for their aging 757s! :old:


So, in addition to short haul, medium haul, long haul and ultra long haul, we now have an extra segment created by A321XLR - the Fish Haul :mrgreen:

Re: A321LR Versus XLR

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:42 pm
by Armadillo1
what about MLW of XLR?