[HN Gopher] First flight of the Airbus A321XLR with up to 4700 N...
___________________________________________________________________
First flight of the Airbus A321XLR with up to 4700 NM range
Author : kken
Score : 70 points
Date : 2022-06-15 16:01 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.airbus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.airbus.com)
| rossdavidh wrote:
| 4700*10^-9 meters seems like an extraordinarily small range for
| an airplane.
| sdoering wrote:
| Sadly I wasn't able to watch it lift off. I enjoy watching the
| Airbus models, esp. the Airbus Beluga XL over Hamburg, Germany.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Seen one for the first time in flight in RL when being to
| Hamburg last month. Was amazed!
| blakesterz wrote:
| Not that I'm in the market, but this page has the sales pitch
| stuff on it, and it's pretty interesting reading:
|
| https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr
|
| According to a few other sites they appear to cost between 130
| and 140 million. Looks like they've sold some already too.
| londons_explore wrote:
| On the maps of where it can fly, are they using some super
| advanced model to give the 'odd' shapes (for example the delhi
| one, which is totally not just a circle projected onto the
| globe and then reprojected onto a map)?
|
| Or is it just an artist impression who was given a list of
| cities and has drawn a dotted line around them?
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I wondered from your question whether it was accounting for
| ETOPS requirements but it doesn't look like it.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Or is it just an artist impression who was given a list of
| cities and has drawn a dotted line around them?
|
| Seems to be the latter, some cities aren't even in the right
| place (London is set in french Brittany, Rome seems to be
| adrift in the Thyrrenian sea).
| bismuthcrystal wrote:
| Rather purchase an EUV machine for that price.
| AnonMO wrote:
| Why would an airliner purchase and EUV machine? Unless you
| know something I don't. Delta 4nm process node coming to a
| chip near you.
| ju-st wrote:
| "London" https://imgur.com/a/RSVdLjM
| bombcar wrote:
| After Brexit it was much cheaper to just move London into the
| middle of France, apparently.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Sheesh, and I thought the commute from Stansted to the city
| was rough.
| sorokod wrote:
| meh, National Express takes you to Golders Green where you
| have the northern line.
| erikig wrote:
| After a huge investment in the hub-and-spoke uber-plane (the
| A380), this plane feels like a hopeful departure, especially for
| people that travel to the less popular ends of the earth that
| have to take 3 hops to get there.
| rektide wrote:
| Fuel capacity 40,000 liters of fuel. At a range of 8,700 km,
| that'd be 0.217km/l or .511mi/g.
|
| An Airbus A350-LM, a widebody/higher-capacity plane that can go
| 15,000 km, has 141,000 liters of fuel. That'd be 0.106km/l, or
| .249mi/g.
|
| I suspect these figures are a bit off, as I doubt "range" == "all
| fuel burned". But it's at least somewhat representative.
| ddalex wrote:
| Normally for airliners you compare fuel burn per distance per
| passenger.
|
| At 200 passengers you'd get 2.3 l per 100km per passenger (100
| miles per gallon per passenger), in line with a small sedan
| car.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > At 200 passengers
|
| Unfortunately, most planes fly far from their maximum
| capacity (even though most passengers are in fact flying in
| overcrowded planes).
| rektide wrote:
| Personally I think it's useful to use scales & dimensions
| people already know & grasp. I'm having a hard time combining
| all the factors you're smooshing together. I haven't figured
| out- 2.3 what per 100km per passenger? I haven't run any
| numbers to run that have gotten me 2.3 anythings.
|
| Using my figure, if you want to get per-passenger, if we say
| it seats 200, we can multiply .217km/l by (1 plane/200
| persons) and get 43.4 km/l / person, or, 102mpg/p, which I
| think most people will understand reasonably intuitively,
| compared to what they already know. This is indeed a rather
| impressive claim. It makes me wonder why they don't just call
| this thing the 100mpg plane, if true.
| davidgay wrote:
| > Personally I think it's useful to use scales & dimensions
| people already know & grasp.
|
| To the best of my knowledge, most of the world reports
| transport efficiency in l/100km. And the poster even nicely
| included the US-centric mpg value for people in not-most-
| of-the-world.
| foepys wrote:
| Some (most?) regions compare fuel efficiency by how much
| fuel in liters is needed to travel 100km.
|
| English speaking countries (or at least most of them)
| usually do it the other way around and compare the distance
| one can travel by fuel unit.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| The US and UK are probably the only English-speaking
| countries that measure efficiency in miles per gallon
| (and not even the same gallon). Everywhere else uses
| litres per 100 km. I believe my car (2003 VW Jetta TDI
| diesel) gets about 4.5 L/100 km, which is quite good
| compared to a typical truck that gets 15+ L/100 km.
| a9h74j wrote:
| distance per fuel quantity ~~ efficiency
|
| fuel quantity per distance ~~ inefficiency or cost
| robbiep wrote:
| You weren't able to divide 1 by 43.4 and multiply by 100 to
| get 2.3L per 100km?
| jcims wrote:
| I flew from Ohio to Melbourne back in ~2001. It was CMH-DEN-
| LAX-MEL. The leg from DEN to LAX was a 747 and there were
| probably 30 passengers in the entire plane. I was near the
| back of the plane and it gave me an entirely new perspective
| of just how much they bend and twist in flight. You could see
| the walls above the wings sort of bow in when lifting off.
|
| Probably tied with hot air balloons for least efficient
| transport I've ever taken.
|
| (For the leg from LAX to MEL i had the aisle seat beside the
| shitter galley in the back. 14 hours of people fanning their
| farts in my face.)
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| You should see what a big plane does fully laden.
|
| The fuselage and wing of a cargo jet in turbulence
| basically "banana" in perpendicular planes.
| technothrasher wrote:
| I flew on a 757 from ORD to ROC years ago as the only
| passenger on the plane. The flight attendant just came and
| sat down next to me to do the safety briefing, told me she
| was sorry but no refreshment service, and then went up
| front. I didn't see another soul again until we were
| getting ready to land. That was a very eerie two hours.
| navi0 wrote:
| I am not able to verify the accuracy of your calculations,
| but for comparison, Delta circa 2018 marketed how its entire
| fleet (flying at a pretty high capacity factor) averaged ~44
| passenger miles per gallon.
|
| I don't know how air freight is factored into fuel efficiency
| calculations, but it has become an increasing part of
| passenger airlines' business models in the past decade, too.
|
| (Source: I spent way too much time keeping tabs on Delta as a
| top level frequent flier)
| closewith wrote:
| Even that is only a fair comparison when comparing specific
| routes, as an airliner has the significant penalty of having
| to carry aloft its own fuel, and therefore becomes less fuel
| efficient on longer routes.
| rektide wrote:
| This doesnt make sense. I divided range by fuel capacity.
| There's no longer range possible.
| closewith wrote:
| Right, but the max range for an airliner is the distance
| at which its least fuel efficient, as it has to carry its
| max fuel load. Shorter routes will be much more efficient
| due to the lower fuel loading.
| Ekaros wrote:
| First I considered that 2.3l/100km is pretty great. But when
| actually scaling it to full car with 4 persons in it doesn't
| feel that special anymore about 9.1 l/100km. Which really
| isn't anything to write home about even in larger sedans.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If fuel economy is your goal, you can take a glider.
|
| A skilled glider pilot can go (slowly) as far as they like
| with no fuel. The typical limit is when you get tired and
| need to sleep (gliding can't yet be done well by a
| computer, because it takes quite some skill to find the
| necessary thermals and wind currents).
| ddalex wrote:
| Well, yes, but this doesn't drive on a road at 130km/h, it
| files through the sky at close to speed of sound
| colordrops wrote:
| Couldn't figure out what the big deal is from the link, so after
| some further research, this is what's going on. The A321XLR is a
| smaller more efficient plane that will make long range but less
| frequently travelled routes profitable without the need for
| transfers on bigger planes.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| It'll enable point to point flights for many airport pairs
| which IMHO is the future of air travel. Connecting flight are
| too slow, too unreliable and too expensive to run.
|
| Low cost airlines will use it to eat the more established
| players' lunch in longer haul flights (cross country,
| international).
| simplicio wrote:
| First read it as 4700 nano-meters, and really couldn't figure
| out what the big deal was.
| zeristor wrote:
| 1.852e+12 nm in a nm
| louloulou wrote:
| and 1.852 km in a nm
|
| therefore 1.852e+12 * 1.852 km = 1 nm
|
| i.e. 1 nm = 22927.4921 astronomical units
|
| Talk about extra long range!
| bee_rider wrote:
| Right? Clearly they are talking about torque, which makes it
| more impressive, although I'm not sure what torque exactly.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Torque would be N[?]m or N m, not nm.
| ximus wrote:
| distance not torque, Nautical Miles (NM)
| [deleted]
| jonplackett wrote:
| My sarcasm meter is all over the place :/
| bismuthcrystal wrote:
| I'm not sure what a range of 4700 Joules mean either!
| a9h74j wrote:
| Fantastic Voyage?
| CountHackulus wrote:
| Are you Android Auto in Canada? I've had it tell me numerous
| times that I'd be home at 8:04 micro-meters.
| [deleted]
| AareyBaba wrote:
| For those of us used to Freedom units:
|
| 4700 nautical mile (NM) = 95,192 football fields
| iso1631 wrote:
| 4700nm would allows flights from say London to 49 states and
| all of Canada (as well as the middle east and most of Africa
| etc)
|
| http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm+%40lhr&MS=wls&MP=o&DU=mi
|
| That said there's already a 4000nm range, and narrow body
| flights of that distance aren't that common.
| hulitu wrote:
| Even a slug has a 4000nm (4um) flight range.
| cardiffspaceman wrote:
| Nautical miles (unfortunately) 7408 km (kilometers).
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > 4700nm would allows flights from say London to 49 states
| and all of Canada (as well as the middle east and most of
| Africa etc)
|
| Isn't that already possible? An ancient 747 can do up to
| 5300.
| masklinn wrote:
| That's a widebody, it's a completely different capability
| (and price, or purchase and operation) than the narrowbody
| A320 family. Long-range widebodies can fly more than
| 9000nm.
| smachiz wrote:
| The issue is that a 747 is too big to fly from, say, London
| to St Louis profitably.
|
| This is a single aisle, small aircraft. It is a big unlock
| for more point to point, small market to big market flights
| (and even small market to small market flights).
|
| Flights like NY-FLR without having to transit somewhere in
| the EU will become an option, at least over the summer,
| might become an option (if FLR even has
| customs/immigration).
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Are labor costs a significant percentage of the cost to
| run a route? A smaller airplane with less passengers will
| need less flight attendants but I'm guessing it'll need
| nearly the same number of pilots, co-pilots, and relief
| pilots. Given the ever-worsening pilot shortage, simple
| staff availability might be an issue regardless of labor
| costs.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| the big cost reduction is engines. a jet engine is the
| most expensive part of a plane, so halving the number of
| engines dramatically reduces the plane cost and
| maintenance cost.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| "767-300ER consumes 1,600 gallons of fuel for each hour
| in flight" according to one link, to give you some back-
| of-envelope math.
|
| Looks like in the US, Jet A costs roughly $4/gal (I'm
| sure airlines pay less, due to volume and such) but that
| means the plane is burning $6500/hr in fuel.
|
| Very rough guesses on labor: figure the two pilots are
| making $100k/year, that's $100-200/hour just for them.
| Cabin crew I'd guess are 50k/year, google says 7 of them,
| so that's $350-700/hour there (figures are doubled
| because I seem to recall the true cost of an employee is
| usually twice their salary?)
|
| So very very roughly, fuel costs are 10x labor costs
| flak48 wrote:
| But a 747 or similarly large aircraft carries 400+
| passengers and is not economically viable at 180-200
| passengers like the A321.
|
| Smaller but longer range aircraft (like the 787) have
| enabled airlines to fly direct on long routes with lower
| demand (instead of having to make a stop, usually at the
| airline's hub eg. Dubai for Emirates)
| sokoloff wrote:
| A modern twinjet has much better fuel specifics than an
| ancient, 4-engine 747.
| walski wrote:
| Yes, but a 747 wide-body is a lot larger and hence needs a
| hub-and-spoke route network to fill these giant planes at a
| hub to make the flight viable economically. The narrow-body
| A321 can be filled with ~200 passengers (compared to almost
| 500 pax capacity for a 747-800) at many smaller airports,
| making long-distance point-to-point routes from these
| airports viable.
| masklinn wrote:
| FWIW long-range widebodies are not necessarily jumbos, a
| 787-9 seats under 300, and an A350-900ULR has 315
| passengers.
|
| Assuming the XLR can be configured like a regular 321neo,
| it can reach 244 passengers in single-class
| configuration, and 200 in dual-class.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| A 787-9 seats "just" 300 because typically 30 seats are
| 'premium business' where your seat becomes a bed and you
| have a partition - basically first class but less service
| and a bit less cushy. 30 are business. 30 are premium
| cattle class. 200 are cattle class.
|
| https://thepointsguy.com/guide/tour-aa-
| boeing-787-9-dreamlin...
| nemetroid wrote:
| A 787-9 can seat 400 in single-class configuration. It
| has more than twice the maximum take off weight of the
| A321XLR. It's a significantly larger plane.
|
| (the A350 is even larger)
| Someone1234 wrote:
| > 4700nm would allows flights from say London to 49 states
|
| The official website for this aircraft doesn't seem to
| suggest that, for example all of California is outside its
| range graphic:
|
| https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr
|
| I'm not able to use that gcmap website linked.
| egberts1 wrote:
| Oh, that is only 4,759,624 fathoms. Got it.
| cinntaile wrote:
| NM = nautical miles or what?
| bombcar wrote:
| Yep, most airplane things are measured in nautical miles.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Stuck in the past of nautical miles and knots for distance
| and speed. And feet for height. Not that nautical miles don't
| make sense for navigation on maps.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The main alternative I can think of is nanometers, which they
| probably wouldn't write an article to brag about. :)
| olyjohn wrote:
| Probably not Newton-Meters either. That's a lot of torque.
| ginko wrote:
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/f-wxlr/#2c40a673
| Stevvo wrote:
| I have no desire to cross the Atlantic in a narrow-body. It's
| inhumane to have that many people locked together in a thin metal
| tube for that long.
| salex89 wrote:
| This is a frequent argument I see, but I don't see much
| substance in it. I've flown with both narrow and wide body, and
| the most critical dimension is leg room and shoulder width. And
| I did not find any particular wide body advantage with the
| sardine-packed 777 comparing to a regular A320, or especially
| A321, which I have flown in many times. Comparing to a 737,
| maybe some, but the 737 is an age old design, it is known for
| not being too spacious. It's not a A321 contender.
| erikig wrote:
| I expect they'll have different seat configurations for
| longer range planes. 3-4hrs is fine but I can't see how
| anyone would want to fly 8 hours with the legroom common in
| Ryanair or Spirit.
| maxcan wrote:
| I'd take 8 hours in a A321 with Jet Blue's layout (in mint or
| economy) than any wide body from AA or United.
| StillBored wrote:
| As a tall person, I don't think there really is any
| significant difference. The seat pitch in economy on most
| jetblue flights is 32" (per seatguru), which is generally the
| same as united/aa on transcontinental. Yes there are
| UA/AA/etc layouts with 31, as there are jetblue with 34". The
| bottom line, is that if you don't fit in these smaller seats,
| paying the upgrade fee on a crappy airline/ticket generally
| gets one more space than flying a more premium airline. But
| the difference is frequently nullified (cross airline) simply
| by selecting a different date/flight with an alternative
| plane/seat layout.
|
| (and the widths all tend to be ~17.5" or so)
| [deleted]
| Stevvo wrote:
| It's not all about seat pitch; on an A380 you can get up
| and walk around for a hundred meters or so, on a small
| plane you are basically stuck in your seat or the bathroom.
| GrifMD wrote:
| Not to mention the bars and lounges in business & first
| class.
|
| https://onemileatatime.com/guides/airplane-bars-lounges/
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Still beats swimming. Besides if it means not having to
| transfer to a connecting flight I'll take it. Airports are
| hell.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Narrowbodies have much less people in them. Already they're
| enabling much cheaper business class seats across the Atlantic.
|
| To me international narrowbody travel is all win.
| rdl wrote:
| I've done JFK-OPO on TAP on a 321LR a few times; it's 2-2
| staggered 1-1 in Business and quite nice.
| (https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/tap-air-portugal-a321lr-
| bus...)
| Stevvo wrote:
| That doesn't look bad at all. I probably just hate A320s and
| 737s from too many easyJet and Ryanair flights where there
| wasn't even the option of a good seat.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I was once on a United 757 from Chicago to Dublin. It wasn't my
| favourite flight.
| nickvanw wrote:
| Airlines have been doing this with 757s for quite some time.
| This is the best spiritual successor to the 757, which is going
| to have to be retired in a lot of fleets sooner rather than
| later.
|
| The layout makes much more of a difference than the number of
| aisles - I am fine with a 757 but have hated my economy
| experience in a 9-abreast 787.
| yread wrote:
| The cabin is a bit wider than standard a320. They advertise 18"
| wide seats. If they are 32" apart that's ok. It can even fit
| lie flat business class seats. And if it means flying direct
| instead of changing planes in a busy overcrowded airport and
| having to lose time waiting and queuing (and "saving the
| planet") that's pretty appealing
| version_five wrote:
| > And if it means flying direct instead of changing planes in
| a busy overcrowded airport and having to lose time waiting
| and queuing (and "saving the planet") that's pretty appealing
|
| That is the most important thing imo. A 6 or 7 hour flight to
| your destination is so much better that the same length to
| Frankfurt or wherever and then waiting and taking another 1-2
| hour flight somewhere. Most of the pain with flying, except
| maybe of ultra long-haul, is what goes on before take off and
| after landing. If you only have to go though that once, it's
| a big deal.
|
| Plus, I dont see any material difference in comfort between
| modern wide and narrow body, other than your less likely to
| be stuck in a middle seat on a narrow plane and they board
| faster.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| What's the difference? Like how does the width of the body have
| any impact on me? I'm asleep in my seat the whole time either
| way. I'm not pacing side to side!
| jaywalk wrote:
| Not only is it wider, but it's taller. At least for me, all
| else being equal, widebodies feel far less cramped just
| because there is much more room inside. It's a bigger
| difference than a regional jet versus a mainline narrowbody.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Are you flying standing up?
| FredPret wrote:
| Ryanair is going to pounce on this idea
| jaywalk wrote:
| I said they _feel_ far less cramped.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I've flown more than I care to even think about, the carbon
| footprint of my life is about as ugly as it gets. That said, I
| do have a bit of experience to draw on and my current favorite
| is a narrowbody:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220
|
| Originally designed by Bombardier, every flight with it that
| I've made so far (~10) has been an extremely nice experience,
| especially when compared to other planes on the same routes.
| The only plane that I would prefer is the 747 but that's pretty
| much gone on passenger routes now and those two planes would
| not be found on the same routes anyway. So a long flight in a
| narrow body is definitely not something that I would run away
| from.
| uf00lme wrote:
| Yes, I will pay extra if it's an option to fly with their
| planes.
| GrifMD wrote:
| I've only flown on 747-400s with BA and Qantas, and I've
| found them to be terribly loud. I've heard the 747-8s were a
| little quieter, but would you really say that would be better
| than a 787, A350, or A380?
|
| I too have heard that the A220 is a fantastic plane. I'm
| looking forward to Qantas flying them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-15 23:01 UTC)