A320neo Rotation
 

Unlike the current A320, the sidestick commands pitch rate on the neo during rotation. So if you're used to adding that extra "pull" through the dead spot at about 10 degrees you'll command a high rate. The rotation is muscle memory so it takes a conscious effort to set a pitch rate and stick to it.

Not so hard on the joystick, Harry...
 

You might enjoy this accident report about a tail strike on an Australian A320 on a cadet's first time as PF for the takeoff:

Thanks bright teeth...

Love it when they do little whoopsies in reports!

First quote from the FCTM in the rotation technique section
Then a quote from the safety analysis section

Been flying the CEO and Neo regularly and the neo has a tendency to go to high pitch .. need a councious mind not to pull back....just ease the pressure passing 10 degrees and it settles at 15.

Reason
 

you have a 68" turbine vs an 81" turbine, and you dont expect differences?

That means during take off run the aircraft at least the pitch is normal law and not in direct law. Does this happen at particular speed? Any Airbus referrence on this?

They added pitch damping for tail-strike control to take-off only, perhaps because Vnmu is only 80 kts.

Normal law is a misnomer on an Airbus.

It's actually quite a complex blend of multiple different flight control algorithms which vary depending on phase of flight and speed (ie, Airbus will tell you that sidestick demands load factor in flight, but that's only true at high speeds. Below that it's actually direct elevator deflection with a load factor feedback loop, and below that it's AoA directly).

​​​​​​​Can't tell you any more about the new rotation law as I now fly the Airbus wannabe, also known as the 787, and no longer have access to the neo FCOM.

Laws and modes! More appropriately ground mode of normal law, much like direct law. Not a gee command.

Rotation mode
 

We’re just seeing some more detail from Toulouse on Rotation mode in the neo; it’s active upto 3/4 back stick and damps pitch commands and deck angles. Slightly new Airbus philosophy in that it can be overridden with aggressive Sidestick... looking forward to reading more...

See this thread as well.

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/6215...il-strike.html

the flare on the 321 NEO feels mushy causing a prolonged flare but i cant find anything on the books.
maybe thats why they keep quiet with boeing related matters.

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.

Are You sure about that ? Safety first #24 only discusses CEO vs NEO difference in the k factor.

Sonic check this one
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/contr...h-and-landing/

That article doesn't mention sharklets, or did I miss something? Always more to know about this plane.

As an aside, I like the way they put it. "Stronger deceleration capability". Is that the PC way of saying underpowered? :O

May be I mistook it as Sharklets in place of Neo. It says neo. But the effect is due to sharklets.

Hi vilas,

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.

I misread it. It says Neo. But the effect is due to sharklets. As PT says higher fan diameter should offer more drag.

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.

Somebody needs to ask Airbus on tech request.

It is in the article, understanding it becomes the hard part. With 6 landings on NEO combined, I am not qualified to draw opinions.

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.

So you're saying they modified it to fly more like the sim? :D

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?