Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Kikko19 wrote:Will be the testing long? Maybe for the load and ACT? the frame is not too innovative compared to the NEO...
StTim wrote:Kikko19 wrote:Will be the testing long? Maybe for the load and ACT? the frame is not too innovative compared to the NEO...
Rumours on various 737-10 and 777X threads that the XLR is also going to be impacted by the fallout on the MAX. Personally this makes no sense to me and whether it would be just for FAA approval I do not know.
StTim wrote:Kikko19 wrote:Will be the testing long? Maybe for the load and ACT? the frame is not too innovative compared to the NEO...
Rumours on various 737-10 and 777X threads that the XLR is also going to be impacted by the fallout on the MAX. Personally this makes no sense to me and whether it would be just for FAA approval I do not know.
Kikko19 wrote:Will be the testing long? Maybe for the load and ACT? the frame is not too innovative compared to the NEO...
tomcat wrote:Kikko19 wrote:Will be the testing long? Maybe for the load and ACT? the frame is not too innovative compared to the NEO...
There is a new flap configuration to certify. I also think that the ACT has introduced a different load path on the lower fuselage towards the front end of the ACT where it connects by means of tension bolts with the new to me Flange Module of the Section 15.
StTim wrote:tomcat wrote:Kikko19 wrote:Will be the testing long? Maybe for the load and ACT? the frame is not too innovative compared to the NEO...
There is a new flap configuration to certify. I also think that the ACT has introduced a different load path on the lower fuselage towards the front end of the ACT where it connects by means of tension bolts with the new to me Flange Module of the Section 15.
Also according to the aircurrent there is a fly by wire rudder.
gatibosgru wrote:What makes an XLR so different from a crew operation go the regular NEO?
gatibosgru wrote:What makes an XLR so different from a crew operation go the regular NEO?
LAX772LR wrote:Who again is going to be launch customer for the -XLR?gatibosgru wrote:What makes an XLR so different from a crew operation go the regular NEO?
The only real significant difference is the weight, which isn't much (98T vs 101T). Otherwise, should handle about the same.
ZEDZAG wrote:If I can see well, that looks like LEAP, wasnt the first test frame supposed to be GTF?
Next steps
From here MSN11000 will enter a working party to install its sophisticated flight-test-instrumentation (FTI) suite followed by installation of its CFM LEAP engines and nacelles
keesje wrote:
source: https://mobile.twitter.com/theaircurrent
It seems PW plans a thrust / sfc improvement, CFM doesn't.
keesje wrote:
source: https://mobile.twitter.com/theaircurrent
It seems PW plans a thrust / sfc improvement, CFM doesn't.
tvh wrote:If I look at these specs, would there be a market for a A321MR ( mid-range). Identical to the XLR, but with a smaller rear fuel tank that takes up just 1 LD3 position. Not everybody needs so much range and it could carry a little more freight.
emre787 wrote:tvh wrote:If I look at these specs, would there be a market for a A321MR ( mid-range). Identical to the XLR, but with a smaller rear fuel tank that takes up just 1 LD3 position. Not everybody needs so much range and it could carry a little more freight.
Well, isn't this the A321LR already?
StTim wrote:keesje wrote:
source: https://mobile.twitter.com/theaircurrent
It seems PW plans a thrust / sfc improvement, CFM doesn't.
I would love to know what the uprated thrust of the PW engine means for the XLR performance.
tvh wrote:keesje wrote:
source: https://mobile.twitter.com/theaircurrent
It seems PW plans a thrust / sfc improvement, CFM doesn't.
If I look at these specs, would there be a market for a A321MR ( mid-range). Identical to the XLR, but with a smaller rear fuel tank that takes up just 1 LD3 position. Not everybody needs so much range and it could carry a little more freight.
godsbeloved wrote:tvh wrote:keesje wrote:
source: https://mobile.twitter.com/theaircurrent
It seems PW plans a thrust / sfc improvement, CFM doesn't.
If I look at these specs, would there be a market for a A321MR ( mid-range). Identical to the XLR, but with a smaller rear fuel tank that takes up just 1 LD3 position. Not everybody needs so much range and it could carry a little more freight.
How do you fit an LD3 into A320 family aircraft?
But wasn't the XLR meant to fit in more fuel without having to sacrifice cargo hold volume?
pugman211 wrote:Why make another variant when you can just fill the tank halfway? I get it from a cost point of view, that an XLR will attract a price tag premium, but so would an 'MLR'
ZEDZAG wrote:Are single slotted flaps exclusive to XLR or will they be a standard on other 321? Same question about MTOW?
FromCDGtoSYD wrote:What are the pros and cons of the single slotted flaps for them to only be on the xlr?
pugman211 wrote:Why make another variant when you can just fill the tank halfway? I get it from a cost point of view, that an XLR will attract a price tag premium, but so would an 'MLR'
Extra300 wrote:I have not seen any order list for the XLR, but let´s make one.
My source is mainly wikipedia, please correct my list if you have more credible sources. I also guarantee that I have missed an airline or two, so please add.
Airlines
American Airlines 50
United 50
Qantas 20
JetBlue 13
Iberia 8
Aer Lingus 6
Air Arabia 20
VietJetAir 20
MEA 4
SKY Airlines 10
Wizz Air 47
Jet Smart 14
Air Asia X 20
Air Canada 26
Option
IndiGo options to convert an unknown number to XLR from their bulk order of over 300 321 Neo
Frontier. Option to convert 18 321Neo to XLR
Lessors
BOC Aviation 10
ALC 27
AerCap 20
hitower3 wrote:By the way, will the XLR get a separate ICAO designator?
keesje wrote:
https://twitter.com/RadarBox24/status/1 ... 56/photo/1
Soon to be painted I guess, for flight testing this summer and first deliveries next year.
Articuno wrote:From the pictures, the XLR still has the double-slotted flaps like a normal A321?
Avatar2go wrote:Reports that certification of the A321XLR may be delayed for review of the fuselage fuel tank.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-04/