PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   A321XLR Performance (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/660580-a321xlr-performance.html)

4Reds 30th July 2024 03:50

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.

Luxcetus 6th August 2024 19:12

Well I think we will see the everyday performance capabilities, once it will fly regularly

Amadis of Gaul 13th August 2024 00:14


Originally Posted by 4Reds (Post 11706011)
Will the 321XLR have better Takeoff and cruise performance than the 321neo?.

Why would it? It's neither lighter, nor more powerful.

atakacs 13th August 2024 01:32


Originally Posted by Amadis of Gaul (Post 11715807)
Why would it? It's neither lighter, nor more powerful.

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 ?).

Less Hair 13th August 2024 04:17

It has a modified high lift system, different flap positions and different FBW software that could result in improved take off performance.

carpi 30th October 2024 15:19


Originally Posted by Less Hair (Post 11715852)
It has a modified high lift system, different flap positions and different FBW software that could result in improved take off performance.

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.

Cak 30th October 2024 17:26


Originally Posted by 4Reds (Post 11706011)
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.

Never had any issues of being stuck at FL300 with A321NEO at MTOW 🤷‍♂️

IZH 30th October 2024 17:46


Originally Posted by 4Reds (Post 11706011)
The 321neo seems to be very restrictive in temps greater then 30.

I‘ve never had any problems with the A321Neo (PW1100) in temperatures of up to about 37°C here in europe.



Originally Posted by 4Reds (Post 11706011)
And if you have a RWY that is only about 2,500m its almost better the be in an A320neo than an A321neo.

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.



Originally Posted by 4Reds (Post 11706011)
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.

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.

homebuilt 31st October 2024 17:37


Originally Posted by 4Reds (Post 11706011)
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.

About cruise altitude after a MTOW take-off, reminds me the good old B747.;) 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..

Speed_Trim_Fail 31st October 2024 18:34


Originally Posted by homebuilt (Post 11760841)
About cruise altitude after a MTOW take-off, reminds me the good old B747.;) 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..

Those were the days, bumping around at turboprop levels!

Denti 1st November 2024 10:13


Originally Posted by IZH (Post 11760195)
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.

Even that depends. The A321 CEO with sharklets can climb higher than the one without, around 2 to 4k higher initial cruise.


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:00.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.