319/320/321. Which is easier to descend?

[meatlover]

I have been getting a lot of mixed answers on this one.
Can somebody please tell me which one drops easier (easier to descend), and why?

Also. An a320 only, when heavier, will obviously be easier to bring down, than one that is lighter, correct?
The lighter one will be less stable and all over the place.

Just looking for clarification.

[meatlover]

Bump
Help please.

[safelife]

At high (common) speeds a heavier aircraft will display a smaller rate of descend when in idle.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Nope, reverse that.

[Sky Wave]

Can't speak for the A321, but I have to say the only time that I consider which type I'm flying is when I select Flap 2. The 320 balloons on the selection of Flap 2 the 319 doesn't. Otherwise 3 times the altitude works for me and I don't care if it's a 319 or a 320 because I've never noticed a difference.

SW

[Bula]

A light Aircraft requires less NM to descend.

A320 @ FL310
65t = 93nm
45t = 71nm

A321 @ FL310
80t = 93nm
60t = 81nm

Therefore, at a given weight, the A321 is easier to descend.

Eg @ 70t, A320 requires 98nm, A321 requires 87nm. Thought This is purely because of the higher wing loading of the A321, though practically irrevalent due the differences in EW and higher operating weights.

[hawk37]

Safelife has it right, for a specific aircraft

Bula, why will the A321 have a higher wingloading than the A320, if they are both at the same weight (70t)?

[Dream Land]

No 319 time, but the 320 is like a sports car, you can make it do anything, over 70T, the 321 requires a bit of room to slow down.

[Max Angle]

At the same weight an A321 will actually have a slightly lower wing loading as it has 4 more square meters of wing area due to the trailing edge of the redesigned flaps (double slotted on the 321, single slot on the 320/319) being extended aft to increase the chord in the retracted position. It was needed to improve cruise performance of the heavier aircraft.

[Bula]

Fair Enough.... What he/she said