StudiodeKadent
Topic Author
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

A321LR realistic range?

Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:55 am

I was wondering, what would the A321LR's range be if it were configured to carry 232 passengers? Presumably quite a bit lower than the 4100nmi figure Airbus gives. Would it be around 3500nmi or?

Note: I'm speaking of the LR specifically, not the XLR.

Thanks in advance.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:08 pm

I found this article that may be a helpful starting point for what you want to discuss.

https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

It speaks about both the LR and XLR.

The LR, according to the author, seems to have ~3,000nm range at 23.5t payload (~232 pax and their bags).
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
tealnz
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:35 pm

It needs to be said that you can apply Epsilon's methodology to any aircraft with similar results. The brochure range is a still-air range with a specified number of passengers and bags, no cargo and typically a minimalist configuration for cabin and consumables. Once you start factoring in more typical cabin weights, passenger/baggage weights, catering, in-service deterioration of airframe and engines and winds it's entirely normal to end up with a real-world range much shorter than the brochure figure. At the same time it's common for airlines to settle for much lower passenger density than is assumed by brochure range, or to limit bookings on sectors liable to come up against seasonal range restrictions. So this is not unique to the LR or XLR.
 
StudiodeKadent
Topic Author
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:08 am

MoKa777 wrote:
I found this article that may be a helpful starting point for what you want to discuss.

https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

It speaks about both the LR and XLR.

The LR, according to the author, seems to have ~3,000nm range at 23.5t payload (~232 pax and their bags).


Thank you very, very much for that exceptionally informative link! Its greatly appreciated.
 
timh4000
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:14 pm

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:46 am

tealnz wrote:
It needs to be said that you can apply Epsilon's methodology to any aircraft with similar results. The brochure range is a still-air range with a secified number of passengers and bags, no cargo and typically a minimalist configuration for cabin and consumables. Once you start factoring in more typical cabin weights, passenger/baggage weights, catering, in-service deterioration of airframe and engines and winds it's entirely normal to end up with a real-world range much shorter than the brochure figure. At the same time it's common for airlines to settle for much lower passenger density than is assumed by brochure range, or to limit bookings on sectors liable to come up against seasonal range restrictions. So this is not unique to the LR or XLR.
- the bolded part, catering, in service deterioration of airframe and engines and winds. Could you elaborate more on that statement. I'm not really understanding it.
 
sciing
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:54 am

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:08 am

StudiodeKadent wrote:
I was wondering, what would the A321LR's range be if it were configured to carry 232 passengers? Presumably quite a bit lower than the 4100nmi figure Airbus gives. Would it be around 3500nmi or?

It is not an LR in that configuration.
Why would you put an extra ACT on the Aircraft when you could not use for weight restriction?
Without the extra ACT it is a standard A321NEO!
 
tealnz
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:57 pm

timh4000 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
It needs to be said that you can apply Epsilon's methodology to any aircraft with similar results. The brochure range is a still-air range with a secified number of passengers and bags, no cargo and typically a minimalist configuration for cabin and consumables. Once you start factoring in more typical cabin weights, passenger/baggage weights, catering, in-service deterioration of airframe and engines and winds it's entirely normal to end up with a real-world range much shorter than the brochure figure. At the same time it's common for airlines to settle for much lower passenger density than is assumed by brochure range, or to limit bookings on sectors liable to come up against seasonal range restrictions. So this is not unique to the LR or XLR.
- the bolded part, catering, in service deterioration of airframe and engines and winds. Could you elaborate more on that statement. I'm not really understanding it.

This has come up in a number of a.net threads over the years:
- Brochure range for both OEMs assumes basic galley fit-out and low-end catering. Real world galleys and catering provisions for many airlines, especially for long haul, are more substantial - with significant impact on weights.
- Airframes tend to gain weight in service from modifications, repairs etc. Engine performance gradually deteriorates between overhauls meaning that actual fuel consumption will creep up above what is assumed for brochure range.
- Brochure range is a still-air range. Headwinds can have a big impact on effective range, particularly on routes (eg westbound across the north Pacific or north Atlantic) where there are extreme seasonal winds.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9024
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:37 pm

tealnz wrote:
This has come up in a number of a.net threads over the years:
- Brochure range for both OEMs assumes basic galley fit-out and low-end catering. Real world galleys and catering provisions for many airlines, especially for long haul, are more substantial - with significant impact on weights.
- Airframes tend to gain weight in service from modifications, repairs etc. Engine performance gradually deteriorates between overhauls meaning that actual fuel consumption will creep up above what is assumed for brochure range.
- Brochure range is a still-air range. Headwinds can have a big impact on effective range, particularly on routes (eg westbound across the north Pacific or north Atlantic) where there are extreme seasonal winds.


You can game brochure range by way of fiddling with this "basic" setup.
Especially if you use an outdated but "easier" setup to compare to a more current setup from a competitor.

Environmental considerations ( headwinds, reserves) should be about equal for competing products.
Beyond different ETOPS capabilities ( allowing more advantageous routing ) I don't see a way to game that.

Airframe aging causing performance loss should be similar. Maybe one product allows less detrimental repairs?
Same for engines. How do Leap for Airbus and Leap for Boeing compare in deterioration?
Any data out yet?
Murphy is an optimist
 
timh4000
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:14 pm

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:52 pm

I guess you are determining all of the eventual wear and tear. But would the brochure be wrong it first starts out?
 
mmo
Posts: 1851
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:16 pm

timh4000 wrote:
I guess you are determining all of the eventual wear and tear. But would the brochure be wrong it first starts out?


It would not be wrong for the aircraft as described. However, those don't exist. Every airline adds options, which increases weight, they will add a First or Business class section which adds weight. Additional galley equipment, IFE, WIFI. All of those add to the weight which reduces the range as described in the brochure.

In addition, I have picked new aircraft which already had an engine degradation factor loaded in the FMS. Interestingly enough, within a few months, the factor had been updated and increased.

During the purchase process, the airline will give the exact specification of the desired aircraft and the manufacturer will then compute the performance guarantees it wishes to offer. Based on the offers from various manufacturers the airline will make their decision.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:24 pm

mmo wrote:
timh4000 wrote:
I guess you are determining all of the eventual wear and tear. But would the brochure be wrong it first starts out?


It would not be wrong for the aircraft as described. However, those don't exist. Every airline adds options, which increases weight, they will add a First or Business class section which adds weight. Additional galley equipment, IFE, WIFI. All of those add to the weight which reduces the range as described in the brochure.

In addition, I have picked new aircraft which already had an engine degradation factor loaded in the FMS. Interestingly enough, within a few months, the factor had been updated and increased.

During the purchase process, the airline will give the exact specification of the desired aircraft and the manufacturer will then compute the performance guarantees it wishes to offer. Based on the offers from various manufacturers the airline will make their decision.


All available public information I have seen and been able to use to estimate the performance of aircraft from both Boeing and airbus seem to indicate that they are meeting their performance of their marketing specs and that the weights of the cabins and furnishings fall more or less in line with what is in the payload range charts in the ACAPS. I see no reason why the A321LR would be any different in this regard.

Fred
Image
 
sciing
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:54 am

Re: A321LR realistic range?

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:55 pm

Again, at 23.5t payload there is nothing left till MTOW to fill a 3rd ACT with fuel. As the ACT has also some empty weight the range of such LR would be slightly shorter than a standard NEO with 2 ACTs.
It is quite funny that you are talking ACAPS without looking on it, which is exactly showing that effect.
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... C-A321.pdf
P.150 shows what kind of nonsense the original question is! Building such a dense LR makes no sense.
Topic should be closed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests

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