PANS-OPS "C"
Vref: max 140
V final app: max 160
V circiling max 180
Vref A321-CEO_IAE 75.500 = 140 kt.
Hare's breath, but it fits on the paper if you want it to. The endgame is increased safety margins thanks to lower available minima. More straight-in-landings is safer than more go-arounds and diversions to alternates.
Someone tell me, what is the reasoning behind landing a 79 tonnes jet at 12 kts higher speeds than necessary, by using F3?
Ek(3) = 0,5 * 79.500 * 76 * 76 = 229,6 MJ
Ek(f) = 0,5 * 79 500 * 70 * 70 = 194,8 MJ
35 MJ extra for what exactly?
That is equivalent to 7,2 metric tonnes of extra weight. Practical terms, imagine:
One nice shiny 40' shipping container
https://containertraders.com.au/wp-c...16/08/40HC.jpg
carrying three legendary Lada 4x4 Nivas
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c6/ab/4e/c...car-tuning.jpg
coming at you at 250 kph. And needing to stop that combo - or not, because it was never there. Hmmmm. And no, the FCOM does not advise using F3 in gusty conditions.
Back to the topic:
Does the quoted 151 Vapp on 321-NEO F3 fit within the CAT "C" speed range for final approach and itermedieate MisAPCH ? [YES]
Does the certifided Vref on 321-NEO at MLW fit within the CAT "C" speed range for V(at-threshold) [YES]
Did the manufacturer go significant lenghts to "keep" the NEO in CAT "C" [YES]
Does the word "keep" imply that previously similar efforts were made to assure the CEO also had been CAT "C" [YES]