A320NEO lower Vapp in CONF FULL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Argentina
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320NEO lower Vapp in CONF FULL
Hi all,
At the airline I work we started operating A320 NEOs with PW engines a few months ago and I noticed that they have a much lower approach speed in CONF FULL than the CEOs we operate (MNSs 7500/8800 with, as I understand, the same wing). What's the reason for such a change? I know the new engine comes with a new pylon but still a 6/8kt difference is a lot to me. CONF 3 speeds remain similar though.
Thanks in advance for your answers!
At the airline I work we started operating A320 NEOs with PW engines a few months ago and I noticed that they have a much lower approach speed in CONF FULL than the CEOs we operate (MNSs 7500/8800 with, as I understand, the same wing). What's the reason for such a change? I know the new engine comes with a new pylon but still a 6/8kt difference is a lot to me. CONF 3 speeds remain similar though.
Thanks in advance for your answers!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You beat me to it. I noticed in CEO the Vref flaps full is appx. = GW+70 while in Flap 3 it is Flaps Full+5kts. For example GW 60T+70=130kt with flaps full and for flaps3 it is 130+5=135kts. In the Neo Flaps full is GW+65 i.e. and60+65=125kts but Flap3 is Flaps full+10kts. i.e. 125+10=135kts. I can guess 5kts increase over Flap3. It is to prevent reduction in the tail clearance.
Last edited by vilas; 27th Jan 2020 at 08:19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Argentina
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a possibility. I also noticed the NEO flies with a slightly higher pitch attitude in CONF FULL (around 4/5º vs 2.5/3 on the CEO), maybe AOA is not as critical as in the older versions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Argentina
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
At the airline I work we started operating A320 NEOs with PW engines a few months ago and I noticed that they have a much lower approach speed in CONF FULL than the CEOs we operate (MNSs 7500/8800 with, as I understand, the same wing). What's the reason for such a change? I
At the airline I work we started operating A320 NEOs with PW engines a few months ago and I noticed that they have a much lower approach speed in CONF FULL than the CEOs we operate (MNSs 7500/8800 with, as I understand, the same wing). What's the reason for such a change? I
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for interest, I computed on Ipad the landing performance: The A320 CEO and A320 with sharklets have exactly the same VAPP for conf 3 and conf Full. With a landing weight of 60T it was VAPP of 135kt in F3 and 138 for conf Full.
the 320 NEO was Vapp 140kt conf 3 and 130kt conf full.
Weird that in conf Full the speed is actually 5kt lower but in Conf 3 it’s 2kt faster. Any explanation for that? the flaps and slats extension are exactly the same. IAE and PW engines.
I also compared the A321 CEO versus the NEO and for a landing weight of 70T VAPP conf 3 was 146 kt & 141kt conf Full versus 146kt conf 3 and 135kt conf full on A321 Neo. 11kt difference! But this is explained by the difference in flaps extension difference in Config Full the Neo has flaps down to 34 degrees versus only degrees for the 321 CEO.
the 320 NEO was Vapp 140kt conf 3 and 130kt conf full.
Weird that in conf Full the speed is actually 5kt lower but in Conf 3 it’s 2kt faster. Any explanation for that? the flaps and slats extension are exactly the same. IAE and PW engines.
I also compared the A321 CEO versus the NEO and for a landing weight of 70T VAPP conf 3 was 146 kt & 141kt conf Full versus 146kt conf 3 and 135kt conf full on A321 Neo. 11kt difference! But this is explained by the difference in flaps extension difference in Config Full the Neo has flaps down to 34 degrees versus only degrees for the 321 CEO.
Last edited by pineteam; 24th Jan 2020 at 09:41. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a landing weight of 60T it was VAPP of 135kt in F3 and 138 for conf Full.
the 320 NEO was Vapp 140kt conf 3 and 130kt conf full.
Weird that in conf Full the speed is actually 5kt lower but in Conf 3 it’s 2kt faster. Any explanation for that? the flaps and slats extension are exactly the same. IAE and PW engines.
the 320 NEO was Vapp 140kt conf 3 and 130kt conf full.
Weird that in conf Full the speed is actually 5kt lower but in Conf 3 it’s 2kt faster. Any explanation for that? the flaps and slats extension are exactly the same. IAE and PW engines.
I think 321 has double slotted flap that keeps the attitude low.
Last edited by vilas; 24th Jan 2020 at 12:50.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Vilas. We only have IAE engines and PW for the NEOs.
And when I compare the IAE 320 sharklets VS non sharklets the speed are exactly the same.
But the Neos, Vapp flaps 3 is faster which with your explanation about the tail strike clearance makes complete sense to me, But why the VAPP config full of the NEOs is lower than the 320 classic with Sharklets?
And when I compare the IAE 320 sharklets VS non sharklets the speed are exactly the same.
But the Neos, Vapp flaps 3 is faster which with your explanation about the tail strike clearance makes complete sense to me, But why the VAPP config full of the NEOs is lower than the 320 classic with Sharklets?
Last edited by pineteam; 24th Jan 2020 at 12:24. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Vilas. We only have IAE engines and PW for the NEOs.
And when I compare the IAE 320 sharklets VS non sharklets the speed are exactly the same.
But the Neos, Vapp flaps 3 is faster which with your explanation about the tail strike clearance makes complete sense to me, But why the VAPP config full of the NEOs is lower than the 320 classic with Sharklets?
And when I compare the IAE 320 sharklets VS non sharklets the speed are exactly the same.
But the Neos, Vapp flaps 3 is faster which with your explanation about the tail strike clearance makes complete sense to me, But why the VAPP config full of the NEOs is lower than the 320 classic with Sharklets?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So since it’s the same wings as the NEO; Just the engines are different why the VAPP conf full is significantly slower on the NEO? For a weight of 60T with calm wind NEO vapp conf full is 130kt and CEO with sharklets is 135kt.
Only half a speed-brake
My QRH confirms the observations above, -232 to -271N. Admittedly I supposed a typo in pinteam's FlySmart speed-definition tables for a moment (surprisingly possible).
SPECULATION: During flight testing Airbus discovered the possibility to certify a lower speed and grabbed the chance as the whole idea behind landing is to stop the aircraft. Whether or not the possibility was there already on the sharkletted CEO's but such testing was not done or not explored for commonality purpouses is a speculation squared.
A nice find. The Vmca is higher on the -271N, green dot as well if only by a little.
F and S remain identical, while Vls CF3 is higher by 2 kts, that is somewhat perplexing.
SPECULATION: During flight testing Airbus discovered the possibility to certify a lower speed and grabbed the chance as the whole idea behind landing is to stop the aircraft. Whether or not the possibility was there already on the sharkletted CEO's but such testing was not done or not explored for commonality purpouses is a speculation squared.
A nice find. The Vmca is higher on the -271N, green dot as well if only by a little.
F and S remain identical, while Vls CF3 is higher by 2 kts, that is somewhat perplexing.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My QRH confirms the observations above, -232 to -271N. Admittedly I supposed a typo in pinteam's FlySmart speed-definition tables for a moment (surprisingly possible).
SPECULATION: During flight testing Airbus discovered the possibility to certify a lower speed and grabbed the chance as the whole idea behind landing is to stop the aircraft. Whether or not the possibility was there already on the sharkletted CEO's but such testing was not done or not explored for commonality purpouses is a speculation squared.
A nice find. The Vmca is higher on the -271N, green dot as well if only by a little.
F and S remain identical, while Vls CF3 is higher by 2 kts, that is somewhat perplexing.
SPECULATION: During flight testing Airbus discovered the possibility to certify a lower speed and grabbed the chance as the whole idea behind landing is to stop the aircraft. Whether or not the possibility was there already on the sharkletted CEO's but such testing was not done or not explored for commonality purpouses is a speculation squared.
A nice find. The Vmca is higher on the -271N, green dot as well if only by a little.
F and S remain identical, while Vls CF3 is higher by 2 kts, that is somewhat perplexing.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that Vref reduction came from the higher CONF FULL angle of the NEOs compared to the CEOs but as You mention the GSmini factor reduction as well is likely to support the theory of something that was not developed at CEO stage.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only half a speed-brake
vilas in my book that also covers the greater GD on CFM compared to IAE. But it is the other way around for Vmca!
b) Flap angles.
ceoCFM (sharklets or not) Full = 35°.
ceoIAE (sharklets or not) Full = 40°
neoPW (sharklets) Full = 40°
neoLEAP(sharklets) Full = 40°
Assuming higher residual thrust on all compared to CFM, the choice for a higher flap angle could arise either for handling qualities at landing (too slippery) or the need to have higher drag to assure necessary core speed to meet the go-around engine acceleration requirements. The steeper angle causes more noise and fuel burn, surely a decision taken not without a serious cause. (Fun fact: the Full-flap limiting speed remains identical,177 kt.)
The question why on neoPW-shark is the Vref 6 kt less compared to ceoIAE-shark still stands, IMHO.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 25th Jan 2020 at 11:49.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the Optimum Single Engine speed (green-dot) being higher for the NEO is understandable. While rated at the same 27.5k, the higher drag of the failed engine with a larger diameter could suggest the reason behind the increase of both the speeds.
Last edited by vilas; 25th Jan 2020 at 15:06.