Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Sounds like an aggressive time line. With the FAA issues with certification likely everything will have to go perfectly.

I wouldn't be surprised if the timeline slipped but this is just a modified version of an existing aircraft. How long did the A321LR certification take?

Flight testing started in end of January 2018 and the A321LR was certified in October the same year.

https://livefromalounge.com/airbus-a321lr-first-flight/
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... or-a321neo

LDRA wrote:

Just noticed A321NEO has lower approach speed(136kts @80T) than A321CEO(140kts @75T) browsing through ACAP. I guess that's why Airbus changed inboard flaps to single slot on XLR to save weight

United857 wrote:

LDRA wrote:

Just noticed A321NEO has lower approach speed(136kts @80T) than A321CEO(140kts @75T) browsing through ACAP. I guess that's why Airbus changed inboard flaps to single slot on XLR to save weight

The lower speed is because Flaps Full on the A321neo goes to 34 degrees compared to the 25 degrees on the A321ceo. You can find this info listed on page 93 of the EASA type certificate.

keesje wrote:

The XLR's inside flaps are larger and have more steps that can be selected by the crew.

xl0hr wrote:

keesje wrote:

The XLR's inside flaps are larger and have more steps that can be selected by the crew.

There's more than 1-2-3-Full?

keesje wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

keesje wrote:

The XLR's inside flaps are larger and have more steps that can be selected by the crew.

There's more than 1-2-3-Full?

Yes, a kind of intermediate setting 1.5, 2.5, ect. controlled by the fms and optimized for better second segment climb. Like on the A350.

xl0hr wrote:

keesje wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

There's more than 1-2-3-Full?

Yes, a kind of intermediate setting 1.5, 2.5, ect. controlled by the fms and optimized for better second segment climb. Like on the A350.

So setting takeoff flaps 1 is not the same thing each time but rather dependent on FMS calculations due to weights, runway length, obstacles, etc? Cool!

Is that also what Airbus improved on the A350 to get better initial climb performance recently?

LAX772LR wrote:

Do any current docs given the brochure range for an A321XLR with solely the permanent RCT (i.e. without the optional ACT in front?)

I suspect that this configuration will be fairly common, if not THE most common selected.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Passenger cold feet for those seated above the integrated center tank was an early concern of the program. These cold temp tests will be very helpful. I've not read what Airbus ultimately engineered to resolve that issue as there was concern about the insulation used above the tank. Again, just curious what the ultimate solution was....

keesje wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Do any current docs given the brochure range for an A321XLR with solely the permanent RCT (i.e. without the optional ACT in front?)

I suspect that this configuration will be fairly common, if not THE most common selected.

If I remember correctly one ACT gives about ~1 hr / 400 Nm of range for a A321, within the payload range envelope, dependent on specific configurations/ payload.

So if the XLR with 1 ACT flies 4700NM with 1 ACT, without it probably 4300 Nm, 4000 Nm more realistically. Also because leaving an ACT home saves weight / fuel consumption and belly space.

But, airlines ordering the XLR probably specially value the range flexibility, replacing a WB now and then. Using their A321NEO's for the shorter flights (up to 5-6 hours). Then the extra ACT on the XLR's would get used frequently.


https://mentourpilot.com/airbus-delays- ... y-to-2024/

JerseyFlyer wrote:

A general view from EASA about certification of the RCT:

"(EASA) Executive Director Patrick Ky told Aviation Week in a recent interview that “We spent a lot of time on this and had a very controversial discussion with Airbus about it.” However, “we found a good way to work together with the FAA and Airbus. We are converging on a common understanding of what is a suitable design of the RCT in terms of safety and flammability, and how we can move forward on the certification of the XLR.”

See last para here:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... her-trials

BEG2IAH wrote:

For certain missions an airplane needs to be of a certain shape.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

A general view from EASA about certification of the RCT:

"(EASA) Executive Director Patrick Ky told Aviation Week in a recent interview that “We spent a lot of time on this and had a very controversial discussion with Airbus about it.” However, “we found a good way to work together with the FAA and Airbus. We are converging on a common understanding of what is a suitable design of the RCT in terms of safety and flammability, and how we can move forward on the certification of the XLR.”

See last para here:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... her-trials

LAX772LR wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

For certain missions an airplane needs to be of a certain shape.

What does that mean?

BEG2IAH wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

For certain missions an airplane needs to be of a certain shape.

What does that mean?

Just meant that the planes that fly similar missions are similarly shaped as they are optimized for certain stage/weight/speed profiles.

LDRA wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

A general view from EASA about certification of the RCT:

"(EASA) Executive Director Patrick Ky told Aviation Week in a recent interview that “We spent a lot of time on this and had a very controversial discussion with Airbus about it.” However, “we found a good way to work together with the FAA and Airbus. We are converging on a common understanding of what is a suitable design of the RCT in terms of safety and flammability, and how we can move forward on the certification of the XLR.”

See last para here:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... her-trials

The usage of word "controversial" is rather controversial

JohanTally wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What does that mean?

Just meant that the planes that fly similar missions are similarly shaped as they are optimized for certain stage/weight/speed profiles.

They have a similar side by side profile with the same style winglets. Up close though the 757-200 has a 50% larger wing and is almost 10 feet longer plus 30% more powerful engines and double bogey main gears for the much heavier frame.

B6twufa wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

They have a similar side by side profile with the same style winglets. Up close though the 757-200 has a 50% larger wing and is almost 10 feet longer plus 30% more powerful engines and double bogey main gears for the much heavier frame.

Yet the XLR is the superior of both

B6twufa wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

Just meant that the planes that fly similar missions are similarly shaped as they are optimized for certain stage/weight/speed profiles.

They have a similar side by side profile with the same style winglets. Up close though the 757-200 has a 50% larger wing and is almost 10 feet longer plus 30% more powerful engines and double bogey main gears for the much heavier frame.

Yet the XLR is the superior of both

B6twufa wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

Just meant that the planes that fly similar missions are similarly shaped as they are optimized for certain stage/weight/speed profiles.

They have a similar side by side profile with the same style winglets. Up close though the 757-200 has a 50% larger wing and is almost 10 feet longer plus 30% more powerful engines and double bogey main gears for the much heavier frame.

Yet the XLR is the superior of both

flight152 wrote:

B6twufa wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

They have a similar side by side profile with the same style winglets. Up close though the 757-200 has a 50% larger wing and is almost 10 feet longer plus 30% more powerful engines and double bogey main gears for the much heavier frame.

Yet the XLR is the superior of both

In what ways is it superior other then fuel consumption?

flight152 wrote:

In what ways is it superior other then fuel consumption?

• Longer range
• Lower weight (read that: "lower landing fees and overflight costs")
• Lower environmental impact due to emissions
• Lower noise
• Wider cabin
• Parts/mtx commonality with thousands of other units, versus a few dozen remaining for 757s.
• Ability to fit into Group III/Code C gates, whereas 757 requires Group IV/Code D.

flight152 wrote:

B6twufa wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

They have a similar side by side profile with the same style winglets. Up close though the 757-200 has a 50% larger wing and is almost 10 feet longer plus 30% more powerful engines and double bogey main gears for the much heavier frame.

Yet the XLR is the superior of both

In what ways is it superior other then fuel consumption?

tomcat wrote:

flight152 wrote:

B6twufa wrote:

Yet the XLR is the superior of both

In what ways is it superior other then fuel consumption?

Lower MTOW comes with less taxes.
The ubiquity of the A320 family makes it cheaper to maintain owing to the availability of spare parts.
The XLR has a longer range.
The XLR has a wider cabin.

flight152 wrote:

tomcat wrote:

flight152 wrote:

In what ways is it superior other then fuel consumption?

Lower MTOW comes with less taxes.
The ubiquity of the A320 family makes it cheaper to maintain owing to the availability of spare parts.
The XLR has a longer range.
The XLR has a wider cabin.

Longer range is great and all but it comes at the expense of cargo capacity.

tomcat wrote:

flight152 wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Lower MTOW comes with less taxes.
The ubiquity of the A320 family makes it cheaper to maintain owing to the availability of spare parts.
The XLR has a longer range.
The XLR has a wider cabin.

Longer range is great and all but it comes at the expense of cargo capacity.

I'm not sure the 752 has a greater max payload than the XLR. Even less sure at a 3900 nmi range. I'm not even sure the 752 beats the XLR on the water volume of its cargo holds. I can't find any reliable datas at the moment, so I will not yet claim the XLR is superior in terms of payload.

LAX772LR wrote:

flight152 wrote:

In what ways is it superior other then fuel consumption?

• Longer range
• Lower weight (read that: "lower landing fees and overflight costs")
• Lower environmental impact due to emissions
• Lower noise
• Wider cabin
• Parts/mtx commonality with thousands of other units, versus a few dozen remaining for 757s.
• Ability to fit into Group III/Code C gates, whereas 757 requires Group IV/Code D.

As mentioned, about the only aspect in which it won't be superior, is takeoff field performance.... but other than a few obscure UK regional airports that haven't been served transatlantically by mainline carriers in a decade, where exactly would one need that for a TATL operation?

JohanTally wrote:

The XLR will fly on non-TATL routes and there are plenty of airports that demand increased takeoff performance.

LAX772LR wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

The XLR will fly on non-TATL routes and there are plenty of airports that demand increased takeoff performance.

Nowhere near enough of them to make a difference to either OEMs or airlines. Which is the point in a nutshell.

JohanTally wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

The XLR will fly on non-TATL routes and there are plenty of airports that demand increased takeoff performance.

Nowhere near enough of them to make a difference to either OEMs or airlines. Which is the point in a nutshell.

I agree and airlines are more than happy with that trade-off. Maybe once Airbus develops their next wing something like a A320.5 will transpire then everything smaller could be met with the A220 family.

LAX772LR wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Nowhere near enough of them to make a difference to either OEMs or airlines. Which is the point in a nutshell.

I agree and airlines are more than happy with that trade-off. Maybe once Airbus develops their next wing something like a A320.5 will transpire then everything smaller could be met with the A220 family.

That said, I always did wonder what difference it might've made if they'd given the -XLR a 4truck bogie.

From what I recall, the Indian A320s were hangar queens and maintenance hogs, but I don't know if that was inherent to the modified landing gear design, or if that was just an Air India thing.



Clearly, whatever advantages it might've brought weren't considered worth the tradeoff, but I still do wonder what-if.

DartHerald wrote:

Latest news report:

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/air ... 19.article

Is there any reason to believe that the aerodynamic changes would affect rapid descent performance? At the heights where this would be an issue, wouldn't the wing be in the cruise configuration and the same as the regular A321 since , afail, it's just the flaps that have been modified?

Airbus has developed the A321XLR with high-speed performance modifications including reprofiling the inboard flaps, optimising the belly fairing and aileron droop, and redesigning flap-track fairings.

It states, in a communication to the US FAA, that total A321XLR drag in clean configuration falls by about 0.7% compared with the A321neo, as a result of “improving the flow topology” on the upper wing surface.

StTim wrote:

Do we expect that Airbus will back port these aero improvements to the other members of the neo family. Surely a 0.7% drag reduction will be a nice improvements for the other frames.

xl0hr wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

Latest news report:

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/air ... 19.article

Is there any reason to believe that the aerodynamic changes would affect rapid descent performance? At the heights where this would be an issue, wouldn't the wing be in the cruise configuration and the same as the regular A321 since , afail, it's just the flaps that have been modified?

I randomly had access. Read paragraph 3 and 4:

Airbus has developed the A321XLR with high-speed performance modifications including reprofiling the inboard flaps, optimising the belly fairing and aileron droop, and redesigning flap-track fairings.

It states, in a communication to the US FAA, that total A321XLR drag in clean configuration falls by about 0.7% compared with the A321neo, as a result of “improving the flow topology” on the upper wing surface.

So apparently they cleaned up the flap and belly fairings resulting in -0.7% drag. That would mean worse descend performance. But Airbus argues it doesn't matter due to speed brakes.

Let's see what regulators think.

tomcat wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

Latest news report:

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/air ... 19.article

Is there any reason to believe that the aerodynamic changes would affect rapid descent performance? At the heights where this would be an issue, wouldn't the wing be in the cruise configuration and the same as the regular A321 since , afail, it's just the flaps that have been modified?

I randomly had access. Read paragraph 3 and 4:

Airbus has developed the A321XLR with high-speed performance modifications including reprofiling the inboard flaps, optimising the belly fairing and aileron droop, and redesigning flap-track fairings.

It states, in a communication to the US FAA, that total A321XLR drag in clean configuration falls by about 0.7% compared with the A321neo, as a result of “improving the flow topology” on the upper wing surface.

So apparently they cleaned up the flap and belly fairings resulting in -0.7% drag. That would mean worse descend performance. But Airbus argues it doesn't matter due to speed brakes.

Let's see what regulators think.

Most aircraft got winglets added during their lifetime and saw their drag reduced by several percent as a result. What did the FAA say in these instances? Some aircraft also got PIP's which reduced their drag by other means than adding winglets.

Something doesn't add up here.