A320neo Rotation
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
It's not neo but all sharklet aircraft are slippery in flare because of drag reduction. Because of that SAFETY FIRST states that for GS mini only 1/3 of ∆ wind is used unlike non sharklets aircraft which use full ∆wind.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 154
From: Having a margarita on the beach
Are You sure about that ? Safety first #24 only discusses CEO vs NEO difference in the k factor.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
Sonic check this one
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/contr...h-and-landing/
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/contr...h-and-landing/
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
Sonic check this one
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/contr...h-and-landing/
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/contr...h-and-landing/
As an aside, I like the way they put it. "Stronger deceleration capability". Is that the PC way of saying underpowered?
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Interesting. I assume they are talking about the CEO without sharklets; Otherwise I don’t undestand how it’s possible. I don’t see how a NEO with engines of 81 inches diameter can not have a stronger deceleration. Lol
Last edited by pineteam; 1st June 2019 at 01:38.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
May be I mistook it as Sharklets in place of Neo. It says neo. But the effect is due to sharklets.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 154
From: Having a margarita on the beach
Sonic check this one
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/contr...h-and-landing/
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/contr...h-and-landing/
thanks, that's the one I was referring to. The k factor of .33 is applicable to the NEO but I can't see any reference to the CEOs with sharklets... unless I am missing something ?
Cheers.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
I misread it. It says Neo. But the effect is due to sharklets. As PT says higher fan diameter should offer more drag.
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
Airbus usually do not make that kind of mistakes in official documents. Writing NEO but meaning Sharklets, missing the hint there are probably more CEOs with sharklets than NEOs produced altogether.
Though I do agree with the sentiments above, I think we should not settle for a "typo" type explanation.
Though I do agree with the sentiments above, I think we should not settle for a "typo" type explanation.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
Airbus usually do not make that kind of mistakes in official documents. Writing NEO but meaning Sharklets, missing the hint there are probably more CEOs with sharklets than NEOs produced altogether.
Though I do agree with the sentiments above, I think we should not settle for a "typo" type explanation.
Though I do agree with the sentiments above, I think we should not settle for a "typo" type explanation.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 154
From: Having a margarita on the beach
Airbus usually do not make that kind of mistakes in official documents. Writing NEO but meaning Sharklets, missing the hint there are probably more CEOs with sharklets than NEOs produced altogether.
Though I do agree with the sentiments above, I think we should not settle for a "typo" type explanation.
Though I do agree with the sentiments above, I think we should not settle for a "typo" type explanation.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
I just checked my FCOM: For the CEO with wingtips fences and sharklets the GS logic is the same and for the NEO the GS logic is 1/3... Exactly as described in that Airbus magazine... Weird. I hope we can get an answer soon. =)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 379
Likes: 4
From: Sale
Regarding the original posters question.
On the NEO, I don't notice any difference in the initial pitch up from the runway. However, approaching the initial climb pitch attitude, the required pull back on the stick is much less. This gives a tendency to overpitch if you don't anticipate it.
Not really noticed any difference on landing.
On the NEO, I don't notice any difference in the initial pitch up from the runway. However, approaching the initial climb pitch attitude, the required pull back on the stick is much less. This gives a tendency to overpitch if you don't anticipate it.
Not really noticed any difference on landing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
Regarding the original posters question.
On the NEO, I don't notice any difference in the initial pitch up from the runway. However, approaching the initial climb pitch attitude, the required pull back on the stick is much less. This gives a tendency to overpitch if you don't anticipate it.
On the NEO, I don't notice any difference in the initial pitch up from the runway. However, approaching the initial climb pitch attitude, the required pull back on the stick is much less. This gives a tendency to overpitch if you don't anticipate it.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 509
Likes: 3
From: United States of Europe
Higher residual thrust at idle on the NEO? Only flew it once.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
There are different angles at work. One is the sharklets. However subtle it should make some difference during flare and touchdown from winglets. It did to 747-400 from classic, the 737 guys may opine about the 737-300 and NG. The other is engines.Between the CFM and IAE engines Ceo aircraft the IAE has more thrust at lower levels while CFM has higher thrust at higher levels. This is born out by OEI ceilings which are noticeably higher for CFM. That includes residual thrust. I know of one Airline where they find hard landing occurrences are much higher on the Neo with CFM but they are comparing with their CEOs which have IAE. The Neos have higher fan diameter and higher weight and they feel it tends to drop when thrust is closed. And yet according to Airbus the Neo deceleration is less as compared to CEO. So the correct answer can only come from the Airbus. Can someone get it?
