Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14424
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Wed May 05, 2021 12:44 pm

It seems the building blocks for the XLR are being completed.

Image
source : https://onemileatatime.com/frontier-a321xlr/

This week the first rear center tank, or RCT, was handed over by Premium Aerotec to Airbus.

Image
source: https://simpleflying.com/first-a321xlr-rct/

It will be able to hold up to 12,900 liters of fuel for the 101t A321XLR. The RCT and modified wing could be used on a possible A322 too.
I wonder how the XLR modified wing is progressing.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14424
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 9:12 am

Article about the safety concerns raised by Boeing on the vunerability of the new rear tank for outside fire.

Image
https://kaplanianreport.com/

The more skilled people that take a look at new aircraft design, the higher the chances faults are found and corrected in time.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13976
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 9:24 am

Anything published on what the catalogue range without the optional ACT would be?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 10:41 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Anything published on what the catalogue range without the optional ACT would be?


I assume similar to the LR with 3 ACT, but providing additional payload. Airbus talks about 12,900 l additional fuel. To my information the center tank takes the same amount as 3 normal ACT, one ACT good for 2,990l. So 12,900 l should include the one additional ACT. 12.900 l is a bit more than 4 ACT at 4 * 2,990 = 11,960, but some fuel will be eaten up by the increase in TOW.

I expect the XLR to be used mainly without the additional ACT, with only a few airlines going for the full range.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14424
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 11:34 am

mjoelnir wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Anything published on what the catalogue range without the optional ACT would be?


I assume similar to the LR with 3 ACT, but providing additional payload. Airbus talks about 12,900 l additional fuel. To my information the center tank takes the same amount as 3 normal ACT, one ACT good for 2,990l. So 12,900 l should include the one additional ACT. 12.900 l is a bit more than 4 ACT at 4 * 2,990 = 11,960, but some fuel will be eaten up by the increase in TOW.

I expect the XLR to be used mainly without the additional ACT, with only a few airlines going for the full range.


An A321NEO burns around 2500 ltr /2.4t per hour, dependent on many variables. A320 series ACT'S hold 3,121 liters. An A321 cruise speed is around 833 KM/HR.
So 1 ACT is good for.. around 3,121/2,500*833km, back of my head :wink2: & 100 assumptions : 1039km / 561NM / 75 minutes of flight.

Image
http://www.aviation-broker.com/uploads/ ... Jan_07.pdf

So an XLR without an ACT will fly around 4140NM, but have around 400kg lower empty weight/ more payload. And way more payload capability (weight & belly space) than an A321LR, that needs more ACT's and has a 4t lower MTOW.

I think many airlines will fly the A321XLR without the ACT. Getting rid of ACT's was a major goal of the XLR modifications. If you put 200 people & luggage on an A321LR (3 ACT's) you easily run into space problems lower deck. I think John Leahy referred to that challenge years ago.

"We had to play around quite a bit [to put bags in the A321LR]."

https://leehamnews.com/2015/03/16/leahy ... f-an-a322/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
bobdarvey
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:27 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 11:59 am

What means "modified landing gear" ? Four wheels bogies ? :D
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 12:05 pm

keesje wrote:
So an XLR without an ACT will fly around 4140NM, but have around 400kg lower empty weight/ more payload.

This is completely wrong. The 4,700nm brochure figure is with the ACT approximately two thirds full.

The XLR without an ACT has a range of 4,350nm. With the ACT fully filled the range is 4,900nm but it can then only carry approximately 150 passengers.

With 200 passengers on the A321XLR the ACT can not even be slightly filled so it unlikely to be fitted to most aircraft.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 12:48 pm

keesje wrote:
around 2500 ltr /2.4t per hour/


that is some very, very heavy JP you go there :)

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14424
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 12:50 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
So an XLR without an ACT will fly around 4140NM, but have around 400kg lower empty weight/ more payload.

This is completely wrong. The 4,700nm brochure figure is with the ACT approximately two thirds full.

The XLR without an ACT has a range of 4,350nm. With the ACT fully filled the range is 4,900nm but it can then only carry approximately 150 passengers.

With 200 passengers on the A321XLR the ACT can not even be slightly filled so it unlikely to be fitted to most aircraft.


There are many assumptions that will make anyone's numbers completely wrong too. Cabin configurations, weather conditions, route specific reserves, engine ratings, runway conditions, etc. Here's a blogger (Epsilonaviation) that took a more detailed look at possible flights of the launching customers. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 21neo-xlr/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Sokes
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 4:25 pm

Is the top of the tank the floor of the plane? If so I hope nobody will fall in the gap next to the wall.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 5:29 pm

keesje wrote:
It seems the building blocks for the XLR are being completed.

Image
source : https://onemileatatime.com/frontier-a321xlr/

This week the first rear center tank, or RCT, was handed over by Premium Aerotec to Airbus.

Image
source: https://simpleflying.com/first-a321xlr-rct/

It will be able to hold up to 12,900 liters of fuel for the 101t A321XLR. The RCT and modified wing could be used on a possible A322 too.
I wonder how the XLR modified wing is progressing.


Where is that upturned pipe going into the center of the floor? Fuel dump into the cabin if the passengers grow unruly?

Option to fill the tank with Beer and have a huge Kegger?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13976
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 6:39 pm

keesje wrote:
If you put 200 people & luggage on an A321LR
RJMAZ wrote:
With the ACT fully filled the range is 4,900nm but it can then only carry approximately 150 passengers.

Could all be theoretical, considering that most intercon/transoceanic configured 752s only held within the 160-170 range of pax, due to the size of J seats.

Granted, most of them were configured in the recliner era; so maybe more modern configurations would allow closer to 180; but I still don't see most carriers getting anywhere near 200 (possible exceptions being the likes of F9).
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
airzona11
Posts: 1880
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 6:39 pm

Frontier/Spirit and those that pack the A321s dense will love this for getting full planes transcon. Still not sure we will see many long thing routes at the far end of the spectrum. Unless JetBlue style with 20+ J seats works.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13976
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 9:54 pm

airzona11 wrote:
Still not sure we will see many long thing routes at the far end of the spectrum. Unless JetBlue style with 20+ J seats works.

Not sure why, as we saw it done for the last 3 decades, with less efficient aircraft twinjet aircraft. And that's just within the DeReg era.

No reason why we wouldn't continue see it down now; using more efficient aircraft, with more airlines possessing them.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
airzona11
Posts: 1880
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 10:26 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Still not sure we will see many long thing routes at the far end of the spectrum. Unless JetBlue style with 20+ J seats works.

Not sure why, as we saw it done for the last 3 decades, with less efficient aircraft twinjet aircraft. And that's just within the DeReg era.

No reason why we wouldn't continue see it down now; using more efficient aircraft, with more airlines possessing them.


Certainly can happen, the travel world post-Covid is changing around, but my thoughts are that long and thin with only 150-160 seats is still expensive. With JVs and large hubs on either side, more efficient 787s/A350s (plus current 767s A330s 777s) are formidable competitors.

The flip side is that the JetBlue's of the world could fly the NE USA to London/Paris/AMS/FRA and capture the premium traffic that is large in number, not needing to take large market share.

That being said, I think it will be limited versus the more traditional flying (transcon domestic) for the heavier configs.

Regardless, keep bringing on these different models, getting boring out there!
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2651
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 10:51 pm

Why all this hullabaloo about the A321XLR RCT, when Airbus went through the same thing with the A340-500? They developed a satisfactory solution for that one...
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys. Citizenship/Residence::: Washington DC, US; Vaud, CH; Providenciales, TCI (hence my avi)
 
User avatar
LX015
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 11:00 pm

bobdarvey wrote:
What means "modified landing gear" ? Four wheels bogies ? :D


Its a possibility. Some early A320s had an option for a 4 wheel bogie, so it's not really a challenge.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26286
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Thu May 06, 2021 11:56 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Why all this hullabaloo about the A321XLR RCT, when Airbus went through the same thing with the A340-500? They developed a satisfactory solution for that one...

It's no 'hullabloo', it's 'business as usual'.

We already have a thread on it:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1458231

Please don't take the bait and make us go through it all over again.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tphuang
Posts: 6414
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 1:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
So an XLR without an ACT will fly around 4140NM, but have around 400kg lower empty weight/ more payload.

This is completely wrong. The 4,700nm brochure figure is with the ACT approximately two thirds full.

The XLR without an ACT has a range of 4,350nm. With the ACT fully filled the range is 4,900nm but it can then only carry approximately 150 passengers.

With 200 passengers on the A321XLR the ACT can not even be slightly filled so it unlikely to be fitted to most aircraft.


So, would a 30J + 96Y/Y+ configure A321XLR be able to fly JFK-EZE or LAX-NRT year round? Would it be able to do JFK-TLV in the summer time?

If it can do all this, I don't see any reason for B6 to get widebody aircraft.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 1:56 am

tphuang wrote:
So, would a 30J + 96Y/Y+ configure A321XLR be able to fly JFK-EZE or LAX-NRT year round? Would it be able to do JFK-TLV in the summer time?

If it can do all this, I don't see any reason for B6 to get widebody aircraft.

You need to knock off 5-10% of the brochure range for real world conditions. One direction usually westbound has headwinds. Pacific routes need extra reserve fuel as there could be unknown headwinds.

With only 126 seats the optional ACT would be fully filled giving 4,900nm range. However it would also be taking off below the 101t MTOW at around 99t. Fuel is maxed out and payload is not enough to hit MTOW. This lower flying weight should see the payload range curve just hit 5,000nm.

JFK-EZE would then be possible. The LAX-NRT would not be possible due to the winter westbound headwinds.

If airlines were serious about fitting typical widebody seating layouts into the A321XLR then Airbus may offer a second ACT. LAX-NRT would be possible with 126 passengers if a second ACT was offered. The second ACT would get approximately half filled when traveling westbound.

On a typical 5,000nm flight flown by say a 787-8 with say 230 passengers. The A321XLR with half the passengers has approximately half the fuel burn and half the cabin area. So there is no extra cost operating a narrowbody.

For instance Qantas has 236 passengers on the 787-9 with 265m2. The same density would be only 112 passengers on the A321XLR. This could in theory allow 3 ACT and 6,000nm range.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13976
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 5:18 am

airzona11 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Still not sure we will see many long thing routes at the far end of the spectrum. Unless JetBlue style with 20+ J seats works.

Not sure why, as we saw it done for the last 3 decades, with less efficient aircraft twinjet aircraft. And that's just within the DeReg era.

No reason why we wouldn't continue see it down now; using more efficient aircraft, with more airlines possessing them.

Certainly can happen, the travel world post-Covid is changing around, but my thoughts are that long and thin with only 150-160 seats is still expensive. With JVs and large hubs on either side, more efficient 787s/A350s (plus current 767s A330s 777s) are formidable competitors.

The *consistent* history of post-Dereg commercial aviation, disagrees with you.

When OEMs were able to make a smaller longhaul aircraft of similar/equal efficiency to a larger one, it led to market fragmentation.

There's absolutely no reason to believe we won't see that again, in significant capacity, with the likes of longhaul twinjet narrowbodies.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 6:15 am

airzona11 wrote:
Frontier/Spirit and those that pack the A321s dense will love this for getting full planes transcon..


A vanilla A321classic with Sharklets and 1x ACT will do that just fine, and has been doing holiday flights like HEL-TFS without trouble. And that is an extra 400nm over JFK-LAX.

LX015 wrote:
bobdarvey wrote:
What means "modified landing gear" ? Four wheels bogies ? :D


Its a possibility. Some early A320s had an option for a 4 wheel bogie, so it's not really a challenge.


with tiny wheels and breaks at a low MTOW, so not really an option. It was essentially a rough field modification.

airzona11 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Still not sure we will see many long thing routes at the far end of the spectrum. Unless JetBlue style with 20+ J seats works.

Not sure why, as we saw it done for the last 3 decades, with less efficient aircraft twinjet aircraft. And that's just within the DeReg era.

No reason why we wouldn't continue see it down now; using more efficient aircraft, with more airlines possessing them.


Certainly can happen, the travel world post-Covid is changing around, but my thoughts are that long and thin with only 150-160 seats is still expensive. With JVs and large hubs on either side, more efficient 787s/A350s (plus current 767s A330s 777s) are formidable competitors.


A 150-160 seat A321XLR would be equivalent to an 789/A333/A339 with 315-335 seats, and all of those would probably take off with a higher TOW than 212t for a mission that requires the A321 to leave with its full 101t. They do have to haul some 20t of extra Aircraft around around after all.
There is no reason to think that even the latest wide body aircraft enjoys a meaningful advantage over an A321XLR on a mission that it can do, and the 767/777/A330classics of the world will be at a significant disadvantage, unless there is a significant volume of high margin cargo to fill the lower hold.
Whenever a narrow body could do a flight without restrictions, widebodies have been all but wiped on on that route.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 10:51 am

tommy1808 wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Frontier/Spirit and those that pack the A321s dense will love this for getting full planes transcon..


A vanilla A321classic with Sharklets and 1x ACT will do that just fine, and has been doing holiday flights like HEL-TFS without trouble. And that is an extra 400nm over JFK-LAX.

On airlines like Finnair. Now add 31 extra passengers. Also winds effect routes like JFK-LAX far more than HEL-TFS.
tommy1808 wrote:
A 150-160 seat A321XLR would be equivalent to an 789/A333/A339 with 315-335 seats, and all of those would probably take off with a higher TOW than 212t for a mission that requires the A321 to leave with its full 101t.

No it’s not equivalent to that amount at all. 315-335 seats is actually denser than many 789/A333/A339 configurations which usually top out at just under 300 seats.

tommy1808 wrote:
There is no reason to think that even the latest wide body aircraft enjoys a meaningful advantage over an A321XLR on a mission that it can do, and the 767/777/A330classics of the world will be at a significant disadvantage, unless there is a significant volume of high margin cargo to fill the lower hold.

Per seat the A321XLR is competitive with smaller wide bodies (788, A338 etc). Larger wide bodies such as 789/A339s (especially in denser 315-335 seat configurations) and above still have better per seat costs on longer missions assuming you have the volume to fill them.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 11:41 am

Polot wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Frontier/Spirit and those that pack the A321s dense will love this for getting full planes transcon..


A vanilla A321classic with Sharklets and 1x ACT will do that just fine, and has been doing holiday flights like HEL-TFS without trouble. And that is an extra 400nm over JFK-LAX.

On airlines like Finnair. Now add 31 extra passengers. Also winds effect routes like JFK-LAX far more than HEL-TFS.


The 93.5t A321 has a touch more than 21t payload remaining with full tanks, including 1x ACT, and is limited to 220pax. Incidentally that is exactly the average weight for 220 pax with carry on and luggage. Ok, in the US that might be a touch more. HEL-TFS is 400nm/16% longer than JFK-LAX, and the range of the A321 isn´t even maxed out on HEL-TFS, even if it is close. The Neo saves just enough fuel for the extra passengers.

tommy1808 wrote:
A 150-160 seat A321XLR would be equivalent to an 789/A333/A339 with 315-335 seats, and all of those would probably take off with a higher TOW than 212t for a mission that requires the A321 to leave with its full 101t.

No it’s not equivalent to that amount at all.


its the same floor space/passenger, that is the context i called it equivalent for.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 11:45 am

tommy1808 wrote:
its the same floor space/passenger, that is the context i called it equivalent for.

Except a 787/A330s have two aisles instead of one. So you have to be careful with floor space/passenger. Ratio of premium to Y is better metric.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 12:08 pm

Polot wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
its the same floor space/passenger, that is the context i called it equivalent for.

Except a 787/A330s have two aisles instead of one. So you have to be careful with floor space/passenger. Ratio of premium to Y is better metric.


For the purpose of how much plane an airline has to haul around that 2nd aisle is just wasted space. From the passenger experience you are of course correct.
If one wanted to be "evil" the 150-160 seat A321 would be equivalent to a ~375-400 seat A333/339/789 in terms of empty weight dragged around per pax.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
JonesNL
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 12:13 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tphuang wrote:
So, would a 30J + 96Y/Y+ configure A321XLR be able to fly JFK-EZE or LAX-NRT year round? Would it be able to do JFK-TLV in the summer time?

If it can do all this, I don't see any reason for B6 to get widebody aircraft.

You need to knock off 5-10% of the brochure range for real world conditions. One direction usually westbound has headwinds. Pacific routes need extra reserve fuel as there could be unknown headwinds.

With only 126 seats the optional ACT would be fully filled giving 4,900nm range. However it would also be taking off below the 101t MTOW at around 99t. Fuel is maxed out and payload is not enough to hit MTOW. This lower flying weight should see the payload range curve just hit 5,000nm.

JFK-EZE would then be possible. The LAX-NRT would not be possible due to the winter westbound headwinds.

If airlines were serious about fitting typical widebody seating layouts into the A321XLR then Airbus may offer a second ACT. LAX-NRT would be possible with 126 passengers if a second ACT was offered. The second ACT would get approximately half filled when traveling westbound.

On a typical 5,000nm flight flown by say a 787-8 with say 230 passengers. The A321XLR with half the passengers has approximately half the fuel burn and half the cabin area. So there is no extra cost operating a narrowbody.

For instance Qantas has 236 passengers on the 787-9 with 265m2. The same density would be only 112 passengers on the A321XLR. This could in theory allow 3 ACT and 6,000nm range.


Seems like the XLR would be an killer plane for Qantas, wonder why they haven’t ordered 100+ of them. Maybe they are waiting on real world results…
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 12:22 pm

Polot wrote:
Per seat the A321XLR is competitive with smaller wide bodies (788, A338 etc). Larger wide bodies such as 789/A339s (especially in denser 315-335 seat configurations) and above still have better per seat costs on longer missions assuming you have the volume to fill them.


And this is exactly where the A321XLR will shine. Where you do not have the Volume to fill them.

EI wants to start a MAN base, probably with the A321LR in the mix. Now if they get XLRs it would be even more attractive. Many routes have demand but can not fill a wide body from MAN. That is just one example.

I flew CDG-RDU on a Delta 757 and it was full but I bet it is hard to fill a A339 there.

This are just two examples that come to mind but the options will open up. This will put real pressure on the VLA aircraft because right now you can fill big aircraft out of LHR because you "suck" all the traffic from MAN through there. Same for CDG and FRA. But what happens if you have year round options from many "feeder" airports? Either connecting fairs will drop massively to stimulate demand through hubs or the aircraft will be replaced with smaller ones.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 12:32 pm

JonesNL wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
tphuang wrote:
So, would a 30J + 96Y/Y+ configure A321XLR be able to fly JFK-EZE or LAX-NRT year round? Would it be able to do JFK-TLV in the summer time?

If it can do all this, I don't see any reason for B6 to get widebody aircraft.

You need to knock off 5-10% of the brochure range for real world conditions. One direction usually westbound has headwinds. Pacific routes need extra reserve fuel as there could be unknown headwinds.

With only 126 seats the optional ACT would be fully filled giving 4,900nm range. However it would also be taking off below the 101t MTOW at around 99t. Fuel is maxed out and payload is not enough to hit MTOW. This lower flying weight should see the payload range curve just hit 5,000nm.

JFK-EZE would then be possible. The LAX-NRT would not be possible due to the winter westbound headwinds.

If airlines were serious about fitting typical widebody seating layouts into the A321XLR then Airbus may offer a second ACT. LAX-NRT would be possible with 126 passengers if a second ACT was offered. The second ACT would get approximately half filled when traveling westbound.

On a typical 5,000nm flight flown by say a 787-8 with say 230 passengers. The A321XLR with half the passengers has approximately half the fuel burn and half the cabin area. So there is no extra cost operating a narrowbody.

For instance Qantas has 236 passengers on the 787-9 with 265m2. The same density would be only 112 passengers on the A321XLR. This could in theory allow 3 ACT and 6,000nm range.


Seems like the XLR would be an killer plane for Qantas, wonder why they haven’t ordered 100+ of them. Maybe they are waiting on real world results…

Because QF (and other airlines) do not have that many routes that need that low density. Keep in mind 112 passengers is only 10 more seats than AA’s A321T configuration. Most markets with that premium demand also have significant Y demand too. AA gets away with it due to the sheer frequency of trans cons on both their metal and other airlines, which satisfies the market’s Y demand. Ignoring that Y market is leaving money on the table and can easily make up for the extra costs of operating a wide body and then some in less competitive markets.

People on A.net all too often discount the revenue that Y brings in and treats it like it is all trash. There is a reason why full service carriers still pack their planes with Y seats. J is often the primary driver of profit for these airlines, but why does it generate so much profit? Because of the volume of people back in Y bringing in cash to pull that flight up to break even and then profit. Leave that behind and a competitor can come, use the revenue from the pent up and underserved Y demand to help subsidize their premium cabin (in other words, offer lower premium prices than your extreme premium heavy A321) to steal your J passengers and suddenly now the A321 operator is struggling to make the flight work.

FluidFlow wrote:
Polot wrote:
Per seat the A321XLR is competitive with smaller wide bodies (788, A338 etc). Larger wide bodies such as 789/A339s (especially in denser 315-335 seat configurations) and above still have better per seat costs on longer missions assuming you have the volume to fill them.


And this is exactly where the A321XLR will shine. Where you do not have the Volume to fill them.

EI wants to start a MAN base, probably with the A321LR in the mix. Now if they get XLRs it would be even more attractive. Many routes have demand but can not fill a wide body from MAN. That is just one example.

I flew CDG-RDU on a Delta 757 and it was full but I bet it is hard to fill a A339 there.

This are just two examples that come to mind but the options will open up. This will put real pressure on the VLA aircraft because right now you can fill big aircraft out of LHR because you "suck" all the traffic from MAN through there. Same for CDG and FRA. But what happens if you have year round options from many "feeder" airports? Either connecting fairs will drop massively to stimulate demand through hubs or the aircraft will be replaced with smaller ones.

I agree, that is the strength of the A321XLR (along with being a lower risk step for smaller airlines dipping toes in intercontinental operations). But in major trunk markets major carriers with wide bodies will be competitive.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 2:05 pm

Polot wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
You need to knock off 5-10% of the brochure range for real world conditions. One direction usually westbound has headwinds. Pacific routes need extra reserve fuel as there could be unknown headwinds.

With only 126 seats the optional ACT would be fully filled giving 4,900nm range. However it would also be taking off below the 101t MTOW at around 99t. Fuel is maxed out and payload is not enough to hit MTOW. This lower flying weight should see the payload range curve just hit 5,000nm.

JFK-EZE would then be possible. The LAX-NRT would not be possible due to the winter westbound headwinds.

If airlines were serious about fitting typical widebody seating layouts into the A321XLR then Airbus may offer a second ACT. LAX-NRT would be possible with 126 passengers if a second ACT was offered. The second ACT would get approximately half filled when traveling westbound.

On a typical 5,000nm flight flown by say a 787-8 with say 230 passengers. The A321XLR with half the passengers has approximately half the fuel burn and half the cabin area. So there is no extra cost operating a narrowbody.

For instance Qantas has 236 passengers on the 787-9 with 265m2. The same density would be only 112 passengers on the A321XLR. This could in theory allow 3 ACT and 6,000nm range.


Seems like the XLR would be an killer plane for Qantas, wonder why they haven’t ordered 100+ of them. Maybe they are waiting on real world results…

Because QF (and other airlines) do not have that many routes that need that low density. Keep in mind 112 passengers is only 10 more seats than AA’s A321T configuration. Most markets with that premium demand also have significant Y demand too. AA gets away with it due to the sheer frequency of trans cons on both their metal and other airlines, which satisfies the market’s Y demand. Ignoring that Y market is leaving money on the table and can easily make up for the extra costs of operating a wide body and then some in less competitive markets.

People on A.net all too often discount the revenue that Y brings in and treats it like it is all trash. There is a reason why full service carriers still pack their planes with Y seats. J is often the primary driver of profit for these airlines, but why does it generate so much profit? Because of the volume of people back in Y bringing in cash to pull that flight up to break even and then profit. Leave that behind and a competitor can come, use the revenue from the pent up and underserved Y demand to help subsidize their premium cabin (in other words, offer lower premium prices than your extreme premium heavy A321) to steal your J passengers and suddenly now the A321 operator is struggling to make the flight work.

FluidFlow wrote:
Polot wrote:
Per seat the A321XLR is competitive with smaller wide bodies (788, A338 etc). Larger wide bodies such as 789/A339s (especially in denser 315-335 seat configurations) and above still have better per seat costs on longer missions assuming you have the volume to fill them.


And this is exactly where the A321XLR will shine. Where you do not have the Volume to fill them.

EI wants to start a MAN base, probably with the A321LR in the mix. Now if they get XLRs it would be even more attractive. Many routes have demand but can not fill a wide body from MAN. That is just one example.

I flew CDG-RDU on a Delta 757 and it was full but I bet it is hard to fill a A339 there.

This are just two examples that come to mind but the options will open up. This will put real pressure on the VLA aircraft because right now you can fill big aircraft out of LHR because you "suck" all the traffic from MAN through there. Same for CDG and FRA. But what happens if you have year round options from many "feeder" airports? Either connecting fairs will drop massively to stimulate demand through hubs or the aircraft will be replaced with smaller ones.

I agree, that is the strength of the A321XLR (along with being a lower risk step for smaller airlines dipping toes in intercontinental operations). But in major trunk markets major carriers with wide bodies will be competitive.


But there is some play in density. You could go for 126 seats, which is denser and Y heavier than there normal config and still keep 4900nm. Which is enough to reach HKG, Singapore, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and anything in between…
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Fri May 07, 2021 2:25 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Polot wrote:
JonesNL wrote:

Seems like the XLR would be an killer plane for Qantas, wonder why they haven’t ordered 100+ of them. Maybe they are waiting on real world results…

Because QF (and other airlines) do not have that many routes that need that low density. Keep in mind 112 passengers is only 10 more seats than AA’s A321T configuration. Most markets with that premium demand also have significant Y demand too. AA gets away with it due to the sheer frequency of trans cons on both their metal and other airlines, which satisfies the market’s Y demand. Ignoring that Y market is leaving money on the table and can easily make up for the extra costs of operating a wide body and then some in less competitive markets.

People on A.net all too often discount the revenue that Y brings in and treats it like it is all trash. There is a reason why full service carriers still pack their planes with Y seats. J is often the primary driver of profit for these airlines, but why does it generate so much profit? Because of the volume of people back in Y bringing in cash to pull that flight up to break even and then profit. Leave that behind and a competitor can come, use the revenue from the pent up and underserved Y demand to help subsidize their premium cabin (in other words, offer lower premium prices than your extreme premium heavy A321) to steal your J passengers and suddenly now the A321 operator is struggling to make the flight work.

FluidFlow wrote:

And this is exactly where the A321XLR will shine. Where you do not have the Volume to fill them.

EI wants to start a MAN base, probably with the A321LR in the mix. Now if they get XLRs it would be even more attractive. Many routes have demand but can not fill a wide body from MAN. That is just one example.

I flew CDG-RDU on a Delta 757 and it was full but I bet it is hard to fill a A339 there.

This are just two examples that come to mind but the options will open up. This will put real pressure on the VLA aircraft because right now you can fill big aircraft out of LHR because you "suck" all the traffic from MAN through there. Same for CDG and FRA. But what happens if you have year round options from many "feeder" airports? Either connecting fairs will drop massively to stimulate demand through hubs or the aircraft will be replaced with smaller ones.

I agree, that is the strength of the A321XLR (along with being a lower risk step for smaller airlines dipping toes in intercontinental operations). But in major trunk markets major carriers with wide bodies will be competitive.


But there is some play in density. You could go for 126 seats, which is denser and Y heavier than there normal config and still keep 4900nm. Which is enough to reach HKG, Singapore, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and anything in between…

Those markets need more volume than 126 seats. QF doesn’t want to put a 126 seat A321neo against CX’s A35J for example.

You guys are getting to hung up on density (and are getting hung up on QF’s 789, which are less dense than usual to allow PER-LHR nonstop and used on other very long haul routes, and completely ignoring how they configure their A330s used regionally). There are more variables in play than just that. It’s not always about what is the most space efficient (in which case the 737 technically beats the A320, all A330s would have 9Y, all A350s would have 10Y, etc. there are accepted trade offs for the second aisle for airlines. Seat counts matter too.

And we haven’t even begun to talk about cargo.
 
tealnz
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 8:16 am

Any of the experts care to comment on what the Premium-Aerotec photo gives us by way of new information? The rear center tank was billed as a conformal tank but are we actually looking at the fuselage skin here? (Are the external ribs we see actually sitting inside the wing fairing?) Are we looking at a gap on top of the tank and beams that will support the floor beams? What do we make of the tab on the (aft?) left-hand side of the pic? Anything else significant to an engineer’s eye? :geek:
 
777Mech
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 8:24 am

Anyone happen to know if there are any performance upgrades (if any) by forgoing the cargo loading system on these 320s? It seems like you could theoretically solve some of the issue of not having enough storage space by bulk loading bags, and at the same time saving weight from the cargo loading system onboard.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 1:21 pm

777Mech wrote:
Anyone happen to know if there are any performance upgrades (if any) by forgoing the cargo loading system on these 320s? It seems like you could theoretically solve some of the issue of not having enough storage space by bulk loading bags, and at the same time saving weight from the cargo loading system onboard.


Bulk loading allows more cargo to be put in the holds and also saves weight. I could see airlines choosing to bulk load A321XLRs. Many airlines chose to bulk load their existing A321s

Image
Source https://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_hintsa/3335769369

Image
Source https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/wizz-air.html
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26286
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 2:15 pm

tealnz wrote:
Any of the experts care to comment on what the Premium-Aerotec photo gives us by way of new information? The rear center tank was billed as a conformal tank but are we actually looking at the fuselage skin here? (Are the external ribs we see actually sitting inside the wing fairing?) Are we looking at a gap on top of the tank and beams that will support the floor beams? What do we make of the tab on the (aft?) left-hand side of the pic? Anything else significant to an engineer’s eye? :geek:

I don't think there's a gap at the top, that's why we had the 'cold feet' issue discussed on the earlier thread.

I don't think we are looking at the actual fuselage skin, ribs do sit inside of actual skin.

Not sure about the gaps on the side, perhaps various systems (control, climate, power, etc) run through those areas.

Might be interesting to compare/contrast to the center wing box pic we had on an earlier thread:

Image

Ref: https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr ... -wing-box/
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4116
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 2:38 pm

tealnz wrote:
Any of the experts care to comment on what the Premium-Aerotec photo gives us by way of new information? The rear center tank was billed as a conformal tank but are we actually looking at the fuselage skin here? (Are the external ribs we see actually sitting inside the wing fairing?) Are we looking at a gap on top of the tank and beams that will support the floor beams? What do we make of the tab on the (aft?) left-hand side of the pic? Anything else significant to an engineer’s eye? :geek:

I would say that it would sit inside the wing fairing, it appears that there is, as you say, some ribs on the outside and also if you look closely you will see that the rivets are not flush, a tell-tail sign that this will have a fairing over it ( it’s normally flush rivets until the tail cone section at the earliest).

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 2:40 pm

Polot wrote:
Those markets need more volume than 126 seats. QF doesn’t want to put a 126 seat A321neo against CX’s A35J for example.

I don't think so. A narrowbody allows direct flights to Asia from small Australian cities such as Adelaide. Qantas is forced to push traffic into the Sydney hub fill widebody aircraft. The A321XLR allows all major cities in Japan to be reached from Sydney, Melbourne. Qantas could have a monopoly on many thin routes.

The A321XLR has reached the point where it has the range to cover traditional widebody routes. Narrowbody aircraft nearly always beat widebody aircraft in per seat economics. I expect the A321XLR to sell replace many A330CEO routes with fragmentation.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 3:10 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Polot wrote:
Those markets need more volume than 126 seats. QF doesn’t want to put a 126 seat A321neo against CX’s A35J for example.

I don't think so. A narrowbody allows direct flights to Asia from small Australian cities such as Adelaide. Qantas is forced to push traffic into the Sydney hub fill widebody aircraft. The A321XLR allows all major cities in Japan to be reached from Sydney, Melbourne. Qantas could have a monopoly on many thin routes.

The A321XLR has reached the point where it has the range to cover traditional widebody routes. Narrowbody aircraft nearly always beat widebody aircraft in per seat economics. I expect the A321XLR to sell replace many A330CEO routes with fragmentation.

The XLR has a place with Qantas (that’s why the group has 36 on order after all, plus A321LRs) but I don’t think we will see them operating low density (~130 seats and less). That low density is thin on Y seats, not thin on premium. The total seat count is great for small Australian cities...the J:Y mix not so much. QF’s A330s only have a max of 28 J seats. Even a couple of low density A321XLR to several different Australian cities from one market (or v/v) is going to quickly flood the market with too many premium seats.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 3:14 pm

[/quote]

Keep in mind 112 passengers is only 10 more seats than AA’s A321T configuration. Most markets with that premium demand also have significant Y demand too. AA gets away with it due to the sheer frequency of trans cons on both their metal and other airlines, which satisfies the market’s Y demand.

[quote="FluidFlow"][quote="Polot"]

This is flawed reasoning re AA 321. The proportion of seats remains the same.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 3:19 pm

NZ321 wrote:

This is flawed reasoning re AA 321. The proportion of seats remains the same.
[/quote]
My point was there are enough total Y seats available across AA and all other airlines to satisfy demand enough that some airlines (AA, and previously UA) are willing to push passengers away. There is also enough premium demand in the market to fill all the premium seats as well.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 5:02 pm

777Mech wrote:
Anyone happen to know if there are any performance upgrades (if any) by forgoing the cargo loading system on these 320s? It seems like you could theoretically solve some of the issue of not having enough storage space by bulk loading bags, and at the same time saving weight from the cargo loading system onboard.


Solve what issues? The A321XLR will be the narrow body that flies more payload a longer distance than any other narrow body available today.
Yes, I here the clamor, The 757-300 does more payload, but only over a short distance. The academic discussion here if the A321XLR has 100 nm more range if equipped this or that way seems to me exactly that, academic. At full payload the A321XLR will be fuel limited and not do her advertised range and at max fuel the A321XLR has to reduce payload, what a failure. It is just, that quite a few long range frames have this astonishing failure too. :sarcastic:

The A321XLR seems to sell well, as all the other A321neo do, those combined are reaching the sales number of the whole 737MAX line up. I do not doubt that airlines will use the A321XLR to increase further point to point flying over distances, that up to now only wide bodies could do.

Apart from that I assume, that the A321XLR will be available equipped for container as well as equipped for bulk. I fail to understand, why airlines would want to bulk load, when container are available.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 5:46 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Apart from that I assume, that the A321XLR will be available equipped for container as well as equipped for bulk. I fail to understand, why airlines would want to bulk load, when container are available.

Weight. Ability to put in more cargo. Containers do have their cons which is why they are optional on the A320 in the first place.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 5:46 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
777Mech wrote:
Anyone happen to know if there are any performance upgrades (if any) by forgoing the cargo loading system on these 320s? It seems like you could theoretically solve some of the issue of not having enough storage space by bulk loading bags, and at the same time saving weight from the cargo loading system onboard.


Solve what issues? The A321XLR will be the narrow body that flies more payload a longer distance than any other narrow body available today.
Yes, I here the clamor, The 757-300 does more payload, but only over a short distance. The academic discussion here if the A321XLR has 100 nm more range if equipped this or that way seems to me exactly that, academic. At full payload the A321XLR will be fuel limited and not do her advertised range and at max fuel the A321XLR has to reduce payload, what a failure. It is just, that quite a few long range frames have this astonishing failure too. :sarcastic:

The A321XLR seems to sell well, as all the other A321neo do, those combined are reaching the sales number of the whole 737MAX line up. I do not doubt that airlines will use the A321XLR to increase further point to point flying over distances, that up to now only wide bodies could do.

Apart from that I assume, that the A321XLR will be available equipped for container as well as equipped for bulk. I fail to understand, why airlines would want to bulk load, when container are available.


The issue is that the A321XLR isn’t as capable at flying cargo as other planes due to limited volume. Not a problem for most leisure airlines, but it is a factor for network airlines or cargo heady markets like Latin America. The new fuel tank helps, but some airlines may still run out of volume to take advantage of the airplanes payload

The 737-10 will have more cargo volume than the A321. Being able to fly cargo beyond passenger bags can help make flights profitable. The A321XLR has less cargo volume than widebodies or the 737-10, so airlines may choose to bulk load to allow more cargo on board. Containers add weight and reduce useable volume.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 7:18 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
777Mech wrote:
Anyone happen to know if there are any performance upgrades (if any) by forgoing the cargo loading system on these 320s? It seems like you could theoretically solve some of the issue of not having enough storage space by bulk loading bags, and at the same time saving weight from the cargo loading system onboard.


Solve what issues? The A321XLR will be the narrow body that flies more payload a longer distance than any other narrow body available today.
Yes, I here the clamor, The 757-300 does more payload, but only over a short distance. The academic discussion here if the A321XLR has 100 nm more range if equipped this or that way seems to me exactly that, academic. At full payload the A321XLR will be fuel limited and not do her advertised range and at max fuel the A321XLR has to reduce payload, what a failure. It is just, that quite a few long range frames have this astonishing failure too. :sarcastic:

The A321XLR seems to sell well, as all the other A321neo do, those combined are reaching the sales number of the whole 737MAX line up. I do not doubt that airlines will use the A321XLR to increase further point to point flying over distances, that up to now only wide bodies could do.

Apart from that I assume, that the A321XLR will be available equipped for container as well as equipped for bulk. I fail to understand, why airlines would want to bulk load, when container are available.


The issue is that the A321XLR isn’t as capable at flying cargo as other planes. Not a problem for most leisure airlines, but it is a factor for network airlines or cargo heady markets like Latin America.

The 737-10 will have more cargo volume than the A321. Being able to fly cargo beyond passenger bags can help make flights profitable. The A321XLR is less cargo volume than widebodies or the 737-10, so airlines may choose to bulk load to allow more cargo on board. Containers add weight and reduce useable volume.


When you want to compare the 737-10 to the A321 you should define what version you are talking about. But we can start and go through the posibilities.

The 737-10 will have a MTOW of about 90 t, the OEW is not know yet, but we should look at 737-8 numbers. MTOW 82 t, OEW 45 t, Max payload 21 t.
The OEW difference between a 737-800 and 737-900 is 41,413 - 37,648 kg = 3,765 kg. I would assume a similar difference between a 737-8 and 737-9. A 737-10 will be heavier than a 737-9. I assume that the difference between a 737-8 and 737-10 would be 5 t.

So we have for the 737-10 with one ATC (standard) a MTOW, of 90 t, OEW of 50 t and max payload about 24 t. Range 3300nm. cargo capacity 55,5 m3.
24 payload would leave 16 t for fuel. The weight of the fuel on a 737MAX is 22.282kg with 1 ACT. The 737-10 would be fuel limit to 16 t and could use the max payload for short trips only.

Let us take the standard A321neo with 3 ACT.

MTOW 97 t, OEW 50.1 t, max payload 25.5 t, max fuel (3ACT) 26.450 kg. Cargo volume 50.1 m3 The A321 would also be fuel limited. At max payload it would take 22.4 t of fuel. So the range, it could deliver its slightly higher max payload to, would be considerable more than the 737-10.

Yes the 737-10 would have a slightly larger cargo volume with one ACT against the A321 with three ACT, but remove 2 ACT from the A321neo and you have the space, slightly more payload and more fuel, 22.3 t with one ACT. The A321 is not longer fuel volume limited in that configuration.

Under no operational circumstance I would be able to see an advantage for the 737-10 in regards to cargo.

When we go to the next step, the A321XLR, we see an increase in MTOW to 101 t. The fuel capacity without an ACT 26.9 t.
We do not have an OEW, but the weight is supposed to match the A321neo with 3 ACT, that would mean 50,1 t. Let us say 50,5 t.
That would bring MTOW 101, OEW 50.5, fuel 26.9 t and payload could be 23.6 t. With max payload at 25.5 t, fuel could 25 t.
Cargo volume should be around 54 M3.
This frame matches the 757-200 in max payload over the shorter ranges and surpasses the 757-200 over the longer range..

This frame is still further removed in capabilities from the 737-10.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14424
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 7:41 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
777Mech wrote:
Anyone happen to know if there are any performance upgrades (if any) by forgoing the cargo loading system on these 320s? It seems like you could theoretically solve some of the issue of not having enough storage space by bulk loading bags, and at the same time saving weight from the cargo loading system onboard.


Solve what issues? The A321XLR will be the narrow body that flies more payload a longer distance than any other narrow body available today.
Yes, I here the clamor, The 757-300 does more payload, but only over a short distance. The academic discussion here if the A321XLR has 100 nm more range if equipped this or that way seems to me exactly that, academic. At full payload the A321XLR will be fuel limited and not do her advertised range and at max fuel the A321XLR has to reduce payload, what a failure. It is just, that quite a few long range frames have this astonishing failure too. :sarcastic:

The A321XLR seems to sell well, as all the other A321neo do, those combined are reaching the sales number of the whole 737MAX line up. I do not doubt that airlines will use the A321XLR to increase further point to point flying over distances, that up to now only wide bodies could do.

Apart from that I assume, that the A321XLR will be available equipped for container as well as equipped for bulk. I fail to understand, why airlines would want to bulk load, when container are available.


The issue is that the A321XLR isn’t as capable at flying cargo as other planes due to limited volume. Not a problem for most leisure airlines, but it is a factor for network airlines or cargo heady markets like Latin America. The new fuel tank helps, but some airlines may still run out of volume to take advantage of the airplanes payload

The 737-10 will have more cargo volume than the A321. Being able to fly cargo beyond passenger bags can help make flights profitable. The A321XLR has less cargo volume than widebodies or the 737-10, so airlines may choose to bulk load to allow more cargo on board. Containers add weight and reduce useable volume.


Low cost and US carriers use bulkloading. LC I guess because they focus on passengers alone and US carrier becuase the 737, 757, MD80, infrastructure. A320 AKH container weighs 84kg and can carry up to 1500kg, it's way faster to (unload). Put a 400 kg piece of anything into a 737...

This is a guy loading 50-70 bags/ 1000kg onto an A320 within a minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4W6zbUYbDo
This is 3 guys are doing the same in 5 minutes : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z5n_bqzqjg

Bag handling is the second most dangerous job for back and shoulder injuries: https://youtu.be/PPJu8ZXOnB0?t=54
All Boeing NMA, NSA, FSA studies I have seen have container option. Until the moment they offer it, Boeing will downplay.

Image
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index. ... ic=20549.0 Weatherwatcher1, few BA A321 have no containers & you know it ;)
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
majano
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 8:11 pm

Not to take this thread any further off-topic but this tossing and hurling of bags around can cause damage to the bags as well as their contents.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 8:46 pm

majano wrote:
Not to take this thread any further off-topic but this tossing and hurling of bags around can cause damage to the bags as well as their contents.

Eh, I wouldn’t say the bags are always being placed gently into the containers either.
 
tomcat
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 11:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Any of the experts care to comment on what the Premium-Aerotec photo gives us by way of new information? The rear center tank was billed as a conformal tank but are we actually looking at the fuselage skin here? (Are the external ribs we see actually sitting inside the wing fairing?) Are we looking at a gap on top of the tank and beams that will support the floor beams? What do we make of the tab on the (aft?) left-hand side of the pic? Anything else significant to an engineer’s eye? :geek:

I don't think there's a gap at the top, that's why we had the 'cold feet' issue discussed on the earlier thread.

I don't think we are looking at the actual fuselage skin, ribs do sit inside of actual skin.

Not sure about the gaps on the side, perhaps various systems (control, climate, power, etc) run through those areas.

Might be interesting to compare/contrast to the center wing box pic we had on an earlier thread:

Image

Ref: https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr ... -wing-box/


The fuselage section shown on the picture is (part of) the Section 17 and comprises:
- a taller part extending over slightly more than 5 frame pitches
- a shallower part extending below the space to be occupied by the Doors 3L/R and their emergency slides.

Estimates of the volume of the portion of the RCT included in the Section 17:
- Assuming that the RCT doesn’t extend further aft than the taller part
- A frame pitch being 21 inches, 5 frame pitches are equivalent to a length of about 2.65m. The taller part is thus about 2.8m long.
- Having found some detailed dimensions of the cargo bay, I estimate the cross section of the RCT to be about 4 sq.m or maybe a bit less, the cargo bay having a cross section of about 3 sq.m.
--> The volume of the portion of the RCT included in the Section 17 would be 2.8 x 4 = 11.2m³ or a bit less.

The Simpleflying article in the thread starter states that:
The RCT structure will be integrated into the fuselage at sections 15 and 17. This is behind the main landing gear bay. It will hold up to 12,900 liters of fuel
The portion of the RCT included in the Section 15 would thus have a volume of about 2m³.


Here is a picture showing the Section 15:
https://www.rgifrance.fr/fr/actualites/mise-en-service-de-la-machine-d%E2%80%99al%C3%A9sage-keel-beam-poste-15-80

There is indeed some room (about 1 frame pitch) aft of the MLG bay. That would be good for 0.5 x 4 = 2m³ which is what's missing in Section 15 to reach the 12,900 liters capacity.

Here is also a picture of an A321NEO-ACF before painting (2nd picture on this link). It’s useful to locate the Sections 15 and 17 relative to the complete aircraft:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2017/11/quick-news---dubai-airshow-november-edition.html

Now what can we tell about the design of the tank from the picture of the thread starter?
- on the front end of the section (right hand side of the picture) there seems to be a machined frame circling the bottom portion of the fuselage. This frame then makes about a 90 degrees angle and extends upwards all the way to the upper end of the RCT. Note that this frame seems to be an assembly of several machined parts.
- this frame shows a flat flange forming the front boundary of the Section 17. This flange appears to be drilled and the holes will most probably receives the bolts assembling this frame to the portion of the RCT contained in the Section 15.
- still on this frame, we see numerous integral stiffeners machined just aft of the flat flange. There is one stiffener between each hole made in the front flange. These stiffener are on the outer surface of the frame.
- still on this frame and moving further aft, it forms a sort of joggle, the web of the frame now being in contact with the inner surface of the fuselage skin. The fuselage skin is rivetted to this portion of the frame by a triple row of rivets. That is true for the lower, circular portion of the frame, this portion of the tank really appearing to be integral. Further up, we still see a triple row of rivets connecting the skins forming the upper half of the RTC.
- worth pointing at the dark sealant covering every fastener and dotting the inner fuel tank boundaries. We can also see the dark fillet sealing applied along the edges of the parts sitting on the inner side of the tank boundaries.
- I don’t think that the upper surface of the RCT directly forms the floor if the cabin. There seems to be I-profiles located above the upper boundary of the RCT, with a gap of about 2 inches between the RCT upper boundary and these I-profiles. I believe that the cabin floor will be installed above these I-profiles.
- Regarding the stringers assembled on the outer side of the fuselage skin, I expect them to serve as supports for the belly fairing and for any other equipment or system routed inside the fairing.

The gaps on the sides of the upper part of the RCT are located below the pressure relief panels of the cabin. These are the panels which Airbus said need to remain free of insulation in order to remain functional (we discussed this topic about 2 months ago, I'll try to find back a relevant link).
Last edited by tomcat on Sat May 08, 2021 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sat May 08, 2021 11:35 pm

Polot wrote:
My point was there are enough total Y seats available across AA and all other airlines to satisfy demand enough that some airlines (AA, and previously UA) are willing to push passengers away. There is also enough premium demand in the market to fill all the premium seats as well.

This is the same argument I would use to explain why Qantas could run 120-140 seat A321XLR aircraft. They would be capturing all the premium customers who are willing to fly direct.

Adelaide to Japan as an example has no direct flight however there would definitely be hundreds of daily passengers transiting through Sydney or the Gold Coast hubs through Jetstar and JAL. Qantas would be taking the highest yielding customer like on Perth to London. The A321XLR would already have the best fuel burn per seat so the premium charged would be pure profit.

I would actually think this is the Qantas business model moving forward. Ultra long haul premium direct flights and thin premium regional flights.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR Development Production Testing Thread - 2021

Sun May 09, 2021 12:41 am

keesje wrote:
Weatherwatcher1, few BA A321 have no containers & you know it ;)


I thought that you’d enjoy the picture of a BA A321 being bulk loaded. :lol:

I suspect some A321XLR operators will bulk load to maximize cargo space. Using an A321 on routes that had previously been served by widebodies is a significant reduction in volume.
Last edited by Weatherwatcher1 on Sun May 09, 2021 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos