A321XLR Performance
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2024
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Pacific
A321XLR Performance
Will the 321XLR have better Takeoff and cruise performance than the 321neo? The 321neo seems to be very restrictive in temps greater then 30. And if you have a RWY that is only about 2,500m its almost better the be in an A320neo than an A321neo. Then there is the cruise performance issue, of only being able to climb to 30,000ft at high weights and being stuck there for several hours deviating around weather, while other aircraft at flying above it.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 95
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Indeed - to the best of my understanding it is the same airplane with some passenger replaced with extra fuel. The unchanged engines might have a further "thrust allowance" (but I don't see anything definitive on that ?).
Joined: Jun 2023
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: United Kingdom
The main factor here is likely to be the changed wing flap settings. My guess is the t/o perf isn't going to be that much better, but apparently takeoff flaps now depend on the FMS and will vary per takeoff, so clearly they're trying quite hard to improve performance, likely because that's the main thing that you lose from the 757 if you're switching away from it.
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
Likes: 3
From: At home
Will the 321XLR have better Takeoff and cruise performance than the 321neo? The 321neo seems to be very restrictive in temps greater then 30. And if you have a RWY that is only about 2,500m its almost better the be in an A320neo than an A321neo. Then there is the cruise performance issue, of only being able to climb to 30,000ft at high weights and being stuck there for several hours deviating around weather, while other aircraft at flying above it.
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: At home
I‘ve never had any problems with the A321Neo (PW1100) in temperatures of up to about 37°C here in europe.
Of course, it‘s the same with the old ceo-aircraft. But 2500m should not be a problem for any Neo, even with some obstacles in the departure path.
Wich aircraft would be able to climb higher in this case? For sure not the A321ceo. Climbing up to flightlevel 370 or 390 with the A321neo close to max TOW was the norm, whilst the old 321ceo would have been stuck at 310 or maybe 330 all the way.
Wich aircraft would be able to climb higher in this case? For sure not the A321ceo. Climbing up to flightlevel 370 or 390 with the A321neo close to max TOW was the norm, whilst the old 321ceo would have been stuck at 310 or maybe 330 all the way.
Last edited by IZH; 30th October 2024 at 18:01.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 83
Likes: 11
From: Feet on the rudder pedals
Will the 321XLR have better Takeoff and cruise performance than the 321neo? The 321neo seems to be very restrictive in temps greater then 30. And if you have a RWY that is only about 2,500m its almost better the be in an A320neo than an A321neo. Then there is the cruise performance issue, of only being able to climb to 30,000ft at high weights and being stuck there for several hours deviating around weather, while other aircraft at flying above it.
I remember the B747-300, with which I flew the first 2 or 3 hours at FL280 after taking-off with 580 pax from ORY to LAX or from RUN to ORY..
Joined: Sep 2022
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 328
Likes: 183
From: Perpetually circling OCK for some reason
Those were the days, bumping around at turboprop levels!
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 35
From: I wouldn't know.
Even that depends. The A321 CEO with sharklets can climb higher than the one without, around 2 to 4k higher initial cruise.
