Airbus A321LR Seychelles to Toulouse Non-Stop 11 hours

LoganTheBogan · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:03 am

Sorry if this has been posted. I know its already in the A320neo production thread.

So the A321LR just flew 11 hours non stop from Seychelles to Toulouse.... That's amazing.

https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/979603297869975552

Pacific · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:15 am

Perhaps it's amazing because It was originally conceived as a 9 hour/4,000nm aircraft with 3x ACTs.

11 hours with a dummy payload if done realistically is over 10% better than expected and further narrows the space for a Boeing MoM. It's close to typical 767 longhaul distance! It also means flights the length of HKG-SYD is viable!

flee · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:30 am

11 hrs and 4,750 nm is something that is over the design goal, isn't it? Maybe they were trying to test its endurance with the flight and push it to the limit. Perhaps this is the maximum. Perhaps, there is more to come?

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:40 am

When I first saw this I laughed thinking empty aircraft! If it’s a representative load of 170 pax I guess it’s time to say goodbye to twin aisle travel for anything less than 10 hrs

reidar76 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:44 am

flee wrote:
4,750 nm

It is 4750 NAM (North-American miles), that's approximately 4100 nm (nautical miles). Yes, it's way better than expected. When Airbus launch the A321LR they promised 4000 nm nominal range (still air performance, without mandatory reserves) with 206 pax. Airbus hasn't revealed how many dummy passengers that was onboard on the flight to TLS.

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:59 am

I just checked fr24 and it was really 10h50m.... That is more than almost any europe-east coast routing even in the worst headwinds. This does not jive with what the LH CEO said about it lacking the range for their trans Atlantic ops. I guess this test was with 160-170pax plus bags equal load and not the advertised 240passengers. Even with this load the economics would be impressive against a 757 or a twin aisle.

N757ST · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:03 am

11 hours to fly 4100nm? That’s an average of 370 knots. It was also flying pretty darn slow when it did it’s trans Atlantic flight to jfk. (About 70 knots slower then the widebodies around it and 30 knots slower then the narrowbodies.)

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:06 am

N757ST wrote:
11 hours to fly 4100nm? That’s an average of 370 knots. It was also flying pretty darn slow when it did it’s trans Atlantic flight to jfk. (About 70 knots slower then the widebodies around it and 30 knots slower then the narrowbodies.)

That was an fr24 extrapolation error once they lost the data...

StTim · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:08 am

I have never heard the expression North American miles. There are statute miles (as used in UK and USA) and nautical miles.

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:08 am

The A in the NAM may refer to actual miles.. i.e 4100 plus the headwind component.

N757ST · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:11 am

ap305 wrote:
N757ST wrote:
11 hours to fly 4100nm? That’s an average of 370 knots. It was also flying pretty darn slow when it did it’s trans Atlantic flight to jfk. (About 70 knots slower then the widebodies around it and 30 knots slower then the narrowbodies.)

That was an fr24 extrapolation error once they lost the data...

What was? The speeds I was quoting over when the aircraft was over Maine. Personally I found it odd, I fly the a321 usually 3-4 times a week, and up at FL360+ that thing has a VERY narrow operating margin with any payload. Usually about 15-20 knots separate max MMO and VLS.

N757ST · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:15 am

My guess is they meant nautical air miles, as in actual miles flown. Going through that many FIRs I highly doubt they had a “direct” routing. That would make the speed issue more plausible as well.

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:15 am

N757ST wrote:
ap305 wrote:
N757ST wrote:
11 hours to fly 4100nm? That’s an average of 370 knots. It was also flying pretty darn slow when it did it’s trans Atlantic flight to jfk. (About 70 knots slower then the widebodies around it and 30 knots slower then the narrowbodies.)

That was an fr24 extrapolation error once they lost the data...

What was? The speeds I was quoting over when the aircraft was over Maine. Personally I found it odd, I fly the a321 usually 3-4 times a week, and up at FL360+ that thing has a VERY narrow operating margin with any payload. Usually about 15-20 knots separate max MMO and VLS.

The slowest mach number I saw from the fr24 data for that flight was .78-.79. Of course it did not show the mach number for a lot of the route.

reidar76 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:19 am

N757ST wrote:
My guess is they meant nautical air miles, as in actual miles flown. Going through that many FIRs I highly doubt they had a “direct” routing. That would make the speed issue more plausible as well.

You are probably right. :-)

The funny thing is that great-circle distance SEZ - TLS is 4110 nm, which is approximately 4750 sm (or North American miles).

LAX772LR · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:19 am

StTim wrote:
I have never heard the expression North American miles. There are statute miles (as used in UK and USA) and nautical miles.

ap305 wrote:
The A in the NAM may refer to actual miles.. i.e 4100 plus the headwind component.

It's statute miles that's being advertised.

Again, the aircraft (promised approx 4000nm for typical transoceanic crossing) is doing more or less what it was designed to do.

They're getting an extra 100ish nautical miles outta it due to a more n/s routing... that, and as someone else mentioned, we don't even know the actual pax/bags payload they used.

Cool too see, but nothing really "new" here.

N757ST · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:21 am

ap305 wrote:
N757ST wrote:
ap305 wrote:

That was an fr24 extrapolation error once they lost the data...

What was? The speeds I was quoting over when the aircraft was over Maine. Personally I found it odd, I fly the a321 usually 3-4 times a week, and up at FL360+ that thing has a VERY narrow operating margin with any payload. Usually about 15-20 knots separate max MMO and VLS.

The slowest mach number I saw from the fr24 data for that flight was .78-.79. Of course it did not show the mach number for a lot of the route.

FR24 can see Mach number? How would it know? I thought it just did ground speed.

N757ST · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:22 am

I know FR24 references ADSB but I don’t know if Mach number is reported on an Adsb transponder.

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:26 am

N757ST wrote:
ap305 wrote:
N757ST wrote:

What was? The speeds I was quoting over when the aircraft was over Maine. Personally I found it odd, I fly the a321 usually 3-4 times a week, and up at FL360+ that thing has a VERY narrow operating margin with any payload. Usually about 15-20 knots separate max MMO and VLS.

The slowest mach number I saw from the fr24 data for that flight was .78-.79. Of course it did not show the mach number for a lot of the route.

FR24 can see Mach number? How would it know? I thought it just did ground speed.

The "GOLD" subscription shows it and I believing it to be true have shelled out the cash for it :crazy:

(it has other features of course) ..... I think it must be some algorithm? As far as this flight to Toulouse is concerned a 777 on the same airway/heading and altitude just behind the 321 was 40kts faster. If the 777 was cruising at m.84 it would roughly equate to the 321 at .79-.80.

DalRiada · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:38 am

LAX772LR wrote:
that, and as someone else mentioned, we don't even know the actual pax/bags payload they used.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

162 pax but no mention of luggage.

Configured with the equivalent of 162 passengers, and transporting five crew and 11 technicians, the aircraft departed the Seychelles around 21:00 on 29 March.

LAX772LR · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:44 am

DalRiada wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
that, and as someone else mentioned, we don't even know the actual pax/bags payload they used.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

162 pax but no mention of luggage.

Configured with the equivalent of 162 passengers, and transporting five crew and 11 technicians, the aircraft departed the Seychelles around 21:00 on 29 March.

Nice. Though I'm betting they calculated the weight of those techs in there, so probably used the numbers for 173 simulated pax.

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:48 am

This means they can technically do nrt-sea with 170pax...

flee · Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:12 am

reidar76 wrote:
flee wrote:
4,750 nm

It is 4750 NAM (North-American miles), that's approximately 4100 nm (nautical miles). Yes, it's way better than expected. When Airbus launch the A321LR they promised 4000 nm nominal range (still air performance, without mandatory reserves) with 206 pax. Airbus hasn't revealed how many dummy passengers that was onboard on the flight to TLS.

Airbus has explained, here: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

The great-circle route between the origin and destination is just over 4,100nm.

But Airbus says its flight-test engineers have calculated – when factors including headwinds on the route are taken into account – that the aircraft effectively flew 4,700nm.

rbavfan · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:04 am

LAX772LR wrote:
DalRiada wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
that, and as someone else mentioned, we don't even know the actual pax/bags payload they used.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

162 pax but no mention of luggage.

Configured with the equivalent of 162 passengers, and transporting five crew and 11 technicians, the aircraft departed the Seychelles around 21:00 on 29 March.

Nice. Though I'm betting they calculated the weight of those techs in there, so probably used the numbers for 173 simulated pax.

162 passengers, 5 crew & 11 technicians.
That would come out to 172 pass 2 pilots & the 4 required FA with over 150 pass.

Aviaponcho · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:26 am

All that with the Leap...

PW 1100G Advantage coming in 2021 (2% + delta vs the current Pw and the current Leap)

zkojq · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:39 am

So, how far can a 737-9MAX fly with a similar payload?

ikolkyo · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:39 am

What makes this a little suspect to me is how the aircraft went straight up to 36,000 feet. Must not be too heavy of a load in that flight...

StTim · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:43 am

I guess the technical gear on board weighs quite an amount.

airbazar · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:45 am

It doesn't matter what the payload was, pax, or winds. 11 hours in the air is 11 hours in the air, regardless of distance. The A321LR is not MTOW limited AFAIK, it's fuel limited hence the 3 ACT's.

qf789 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:06 pm

Please keep to the topic, this includes keeping the flamebait including the Airbus versus Boeing flamewar out of the discussion

sevenheavy · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:11 pm

ap305 wrote:
N757ST wrote:
ap305 wrote:

That was an fr24 extrapolation error once they lost the data...

What was? The speeds I was quoting over when the aircraft was over Maine. Personally I found it odd, I fly the a321 usually 3-4 times a week, and up at FL360+ that thing has a VERY narrow operating margin with any payload. Usually about 15-20 knots separate max MMO and VLS.

The slowest mach number I saw from the fr24 data for that flight was .78-.79. Of course it did not show the mach number for a lot of the route.

Does anyone know what the A321N would usually cruise at? I'm guessing around .80? Given that the latest long haul aircraft (B787/A350) are cruising around .85, this could add a fair few minutes to flights of these lengths.

Traditionally lower cruising speeds of narrow body aircraft (no, I'm not including the B727!) didn't really matter on 2-3 hour flights, but now they're capable of 9-10 hour flights it makes a difference.

I get that most passengers won't know any different, but some frequent flyers are actually pretty clued up on this stuff.

rheinwaldner · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:17 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
If it’s a representative load of 170 pax I guess it’s time to say goodbye to twin aisle travel for anything less than 10 hrs

Nah. Cargo, elevation, winds, bilateral restrictions, slot limitations, raw capacity requirements, and plenty of other issues can factor into the choice as well.

11 hours are 11 hours. All things that you mention would impact any other 11 hour aircraft exactly the same way.

fsabo · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:19 pm

sevenheavy wrote:
ap305 wrote:
N757ST wrote:

What was? The speeds I was quoting over when the aircraft was over Maine. Personally I found it odd, I fly the a321 usually 3-4 times a week, and up at FL360+ that thing has a VERY narrow operating margin with any payload. Usually about 15-20 knots separate max MMO and VLS.

The slowest mach number I saw from the fr24 data for that flight was .78-.79. Of course it did not show the mach number for a lot of the route.

Does anyone know what the A321N would usually cruise at? I'm guessing around .80? Given that the latest long haul aircraft (B787/A350) are cruising around .85, this could add a fair few minutes to flights of these lengths.

Traditionally lower cruising speeds of narrow body aircraft (no, I'm not including the B727!) didn't really matter on 2-3 hour flights, but now they're capable of 9-10 hour flights it makes a difference.

I get that most passengers won't know any different, but some frequent flyers are actually pretty clued up on this stuff.

If the narrowbody gets you directly from where you are going to where you want to go, then the 0.05 to 0.1 mach difference doesn't matter that much. The lower speed does matter when flying into the wind as you take a bigger fuel burn hit when flying slower.

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:20 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
What makes this a little suspect to me is how the aircraft went straight up to 36,000 feet. Must not be too heavy of a load in that flight...

The first cruise altitude reading from fr24 is 3 hrs into the flight since the Ads b shadow started soon after takeoff...

Channex757 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:33 pm

It's an impressive performance, but the one I am looking forward to is the Pratt engined LR once the engine difficulties are sorted. This flight was with a LEAP engined model, and the PW motor is supposed to be able to stretch its legs even further thanks to a lower SFC.

It's a whole other debate but the LEAP seems the better and lighter engine for short to medium length sectors whereas the GTF architecture performs better over those longer hauls where the weight penalty isn't as much of an issue.

Flighty · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 pm

They might have just circled TLS for 60-90 minutes to get to legal minimum before landing right? Or maybe slow cruise speed is an extreme economy trick. I don’t see the 11 hour aspect of the flight as anything good.

ap305 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:52 pm

Flighty wrote:
They might have just circled TLS for 60-90 minutes to get to legal minimum before landing right? Or maybe slow cruise speed is an extreme economy trick. I don’t see the 11 hour aspect of the flight as anything good.

There is no evidence to suggest any so called slow cruise economy trick. In fact modern aircraft tend to lose range if you go bellow the standard cruise mach number. From available evidence the aircraft was cruising at mach .79-.80 which while slower than some other aircraft is not very slow either.

airbazar · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:17 pm

fsabo wrote:
If the narrowbody gets you directly from where you are going to where you want to go, then the 0.05 to 0.1 mach difference doesn't matter that much. The lower speed does matter when flying into the wind as you take a bigger fuel burn hit when flying slower.

Actually it doesn't. All aircraft have lower ground speed when flying against the wind. I know it's counter intuitive but when flying against the wind the engines don't have to work as hard because the wind is doing the work of creating lift. Of course the plane has a slower ground speed because it's flying against the wind but that's true for every aircraft regardless of what mach speed they are able to attain.

JetBuddy · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:18 pm

StTim wrote:
I have never heard the expression North American miles. There are statute miles (as used in UK and USA) and nautical miles.

I thought everything in America was measured in either Olympic Swimming Pools, School Buses or Football Fields.

But seriously, another milestone reached for Airbus. Impressive range.

airbazar · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:24 pm

Here's the optimum cruising speed for most aircraft. As you can see, there isn't a whole lot of difference between most twins. Flying at mach .80 vs. .78 is irrelevant especially when often you have to stick to stricter paths with congestion and have to fly at whatever speed the guy in front of you is flying.

Boeing 747-400 0.86
Boeing 787 0.85
Boeing 777 0.84
Boeing 767 0.80
Boeing 757 0.80
Boeing 737 -800 0.78

Airbus 380 0.85
Airbus 340 -300/600 0.82
Airbus 330 0.82
Airbus 320 0.78
Airbus 310 0.78

McDonnell MD-11 0.85

Newbiepilot · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:32 pm

That is quite far with a reasonable payload. I am impressed that the engine efficiency improvements have allowed that much range out of a relatively small wing. That certainly is enough for Transatlantic but east west routes in normal operation will probably have less range.

parapente · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:55 pm

Very impressive,perhaps they have been sandbagging a little?Anyway Boeing believes them hence the 797 response.

bspc · Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:55 pm

Very impressive. Btw, according to this site Airbus is now at 62 hours of Flight Testing out of their 100 hour Goal with the A321LR - https://a320archive.com/msn/7877

gatibosgru · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:09 pm

Congrats Airbus on what seems to be so far a smooth testing program!

I wonder if LATAM would go for the LR? Could see it doing POA/CWB/CNF/RIO - MCO/FLL/MIA flights

Slash787 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:31 pm

They can push the limit more if they want to, but again this is just flight testing, many airlines won't do 11 or 12 hr routes on the A321LR, I guess Airlines will go Maximum 9 hrs.

fsabo · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:36 pm

airbazar wrote:
fsabo wrote:
If the narrowbody gets you directly from where you are going to where you want to go, then the 0.05 to 0.1 mach difference doesn't matter that much. The lower speed does matter when flying into the wind as you take a bigger fuel burn hit when flying slower.

Actually it doesn't. All aircraft have lower ground speed when flying against the wind. I know it's counter intuitive but when flying against the wind the engines don't have to work as hard because the wind is doing the work of creating lift. Of course the plane has a slower ground speed because it's flying against the wind but that's true for every aircraft regardless of what mach speed they are able to attain.

The statement about wind creating lift is wrong. The aircraft flies in the air. It doesn't care about what the air is doing relative to the ground.

As I said, when going into the wind a slower aircraft pays a bigger fuel and time penalty. Consider aircraft X which cruises at 200 and Y which cruises at 300. Both air flying into a 100 headwind. X's effective ground speed is now 100. It will take it twice as long and twice as much fuel. Y's ground speed is now 200. It will take it 50% longer time and more fuel.

I have not taken fuel weight into account but my point remains valid.

BaconButty · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:48 pm

The actual route flown was 7994km or 4316nm. However, per Airbus, they flew an extra 10% air distance due to headwinds. Apparently it equates to 4,750 nm without wind. Even if it's without bags that's pretty awesome, and suggests to me that city pairs up to 3800nm apart should be realistic contenders in low density international configurations.
https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/979711715796451328
http://atwonline.com/airframes/airbus-a ... ouse-route

LAX772LR wrote:
What's so amazing about that.

Bloody hell.

fsabo · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:53 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
They flew super slow with a tailwind with no legal diversion fuel (alternate+45min) which would be close to 13 hours.

Not indicative of real North Atlantic service.

The 763ER has a still air range of 6,300NM and it struggles with JFK-HNL in the winter (4,300nm).

The 321LR is a 3,000nm airplane in real world conditions. Still enough for some routes.

So they lied about the headwinds?

448205 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:53 pm

They flew super slow with a tailwind with no legal diversion fuel (alternate+45min) which would be close to 13 hours.

Not indicative of real North Atlantic service.

The 763ER has a still air range of 6,300NM and it struggles with JFK-HNL in the winter (4,300nm).

The 321LR is a 3,000nm airplane in real world conditions. Still enough for some routes.

StTim · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:00 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
They flew super slow with a tailwind with no legal diversion fuel (alternate+45min) which would be close to 13 hours.

Not indicative of real North Atlantic service.

The 763ER has a still air range of 6,300NM and it struggles with JFK-HNL in the winter (4,300nm).

The 321LR is a 3,000nm airplane in real world conditions. Still enough for some routes.

How do you know they had a tail wind when Airbus says it was a headwind?

How do you know they had no legal diversion fuel? Does this flight not need to conform to normal safety rules?

JetBuddy · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:22 pm

BaconButty wrote:
The actual route flown was 7994km or 4316nm. However, per Airbus, they flew an extra 10% air distance due to headwinds. Apparently it equates to 4,750 nm without wind. Even if it's without bags that's pretty awesome, and suggests to me that city pairs up to 3800nm apart should be realistic contenders in low density international configurations.
https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/979711715796451328
http://atwonline.com/airframes/airbus-a ... ouse-route

LAX772LR wrote:
What's so amazing about that.

Bloody hell.

This.

They managed to fly 4750 nm with 162 simulated pax + 11 engineers/technicians + 5 crew members + equipment. That is impressive however you look at it.
If correct it should mean that the A321LR will be able to fly 4100+ nm actual routes including various routing, SIDs, STARs and headwinds with a good load onboard. No wonder they've been bullish on the range. It should be able to fly Central Europe - East Coast US.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net