Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

A319,A320 and A321. Why does the A319 have the max range?

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

A319,A320 and A321. Why does the A319 have the max range?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 21:00
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Munich
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question A319,A320 and A321. Why does the A319 have the greatest range?

Hi,

can somebody explain why the A319 has a greater range than the A320 and the A320 has a greater range than the A321?

A319 4500km
A320-200 4300km
A321-111 3500km
A321-211 2360km

They all have a tank capacity of 19100kg or 19000kg. Where is this huge difference coming from?

Thanks,

GIVMI55W

Last edited by GIVMI55W; 3rd Apr 2016 at 22:19.
GIVMI55W is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 22:35
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 68
Posts: 1,551
Received 51 Likes on 19 Posts
Obviously it is school holidays again........

The reason is that the A319 is smaller and lighter than its larger stablemates, and therefore burns less fuel per hour. Likewise the A320 is about 12 tonnes lighter than the A321, and hence burns less fuel per hour than its larger sibling.

They all cruise at the same speed. Therefore, the less fuel you burn per hour, whilst traveling at the same speed, the longer you can stay aloft, and hence the further you can travel.

This is a simplification, but essentially how it works.
chimbu warrior is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 07:53
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Munich
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi,

thank you for answering this question in your school holidays

Well, that might be one of the reasons, but why is the range for the 321-211 around 1200km greater than the range for the 321-111? Is that because of new engines? Also the range of the A318 seems to be smaller than the one for example for the 320? Is that because of aerodynamic disadvantages?

Thx
GIVMI55W is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 16:59
  #4 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
A319 4500km
A320-200 4300km
...
A321-211 2360km
Notwithsanding the above, these data do look akward. Without knowing what payload were they calculated for, impossible to check though.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 17:14
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Munich
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi,

these numbers are for the Austrian fleet.
Austrian Airlines Group Flotte
GIVMI55W is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 18:08
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Heavier aircraft, similar fuel cells, higher burn requirement, just a thought...
ps: I'm not a bus driver so may be incorrect in my guess.
Skyjob is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 19:24
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,226
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
A318s can have different engines (P+W6000 series) not used on the other models - might check to be sure the range listed is for the same engine (CFM65).

Some A318s are assigned artificially low MTOW limits (lower initial price, lower landing and ATC fees) - they may have tanks that hold 19000 kg, but never use full tanks, to stay below the MTOW. Some thus have a range as low as 1500 nm.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 20:27
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If my memory serves me right...

A321-111 has basic fuel capacity.
A321-211 has the addition of ACT's to enhance fuel capacity along with higher thrust engines to compensate for the extra weight.
Cough is online now  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 21:00
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A321 now offers aircraft with 2 ACT's and 23300 kg total fuel capacity.
wingdeagle is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 21:38
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,295
Received 139 Likes on 63 Posts
Look up the tcds. It has all the certificated fuel capicities and thrusts for all variants.

A quick Google will find it. Was updated in December 15 for the NEO engine. Might be another updated one since.
compressor stall is online now  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 06:43
  #11 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by GIVMI55W
these numbers are for the Austrian fleet.
Austrian Airlines Group Flotte
The must have just updated the figures recently, this is what I see today:

321-211: Max. Reichweite mit Beladung 3,500 km
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 07:39
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looking at the Austrian website, the OP has the figures for the 321-100 and -200 transposed. But the main difference between the twos far as Austrian is concerned is the MTOW, range full payload (200 pax/70T ZFW) on an A321-100 isn't going to allow more than around 13T (ish) T of fuel.
Cough is online now  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 17:25
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GIVMI55W: Have you never heard of the 747SP? It was a shortbody, lightweight 747 carrying more fuel and less payload. Used for long thin routes like transpacific. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP
barit1 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 11:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 777
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
747SP and what an ugly bu**er it was to!
Meikleour is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 11:12
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
(Thread drift)

747SP and what an ugly bu**er it was to!
Beauty is in the eye and all that but I rather like Fry's SP:



Having a growth out of the side of the head looks a little odd though! (Link to P&W test bed SP, not embedded picture as it exceeds the forum width limit)
The late XV105 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 11:42
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,295
Received 139 Likes on 63 Posts
or a hole in the side....


Last edited by compressor stall; 6th Apr 2016 at 11:44. Reason: narrower pic
compressor stall is online now  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 16:02
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 49
Posts: 280
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 747SP was a real looker in the old SA livery!
trident3A is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2016, 15:22
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BA operate two A318s, and they routinely operate JFK direct to LCY.
That's over 5,500km.
Only 32 passengers though....
ELondonPax is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2016, 16:26
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,816
Received 201 Likes on 93 Posts
Originally Posted by ELondonPax
BA operate two A318s, and they routinely operate JFK direct to LCY.
Though not vice versa.
DaveReidUK is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.