A321 NEO Fuel Burn Analysis
Welcome back to this mini-series that I do every time a new airliner drops (don’t worry, the A35K one is coming at some point). Today we’ll be looking at the A321XLR, with an emphasis on the X.
As always (because I somehow always seem to be caught up in this), all of this topic is purely informational. I am not telling Infinite Flight what to fix, nor am I saying anything needs to be fixed. I do this to get information out there and because I find it interesting. Simple as that.
A year ago, I made a statement that it doesn’t matter that we’re not getting a separate XLR, because the regular NEO will have XLR range. I must apologize for this statement, because it is not correct. It has more. A lot more.
What?
Let’s break it down.
Since the in-game airframe is based on XLR specifications, you can simulate having an LR or regular NEO by just limiting fuel yourself.
| Variant | Fuel Capacity | Tested Speed | Game Fuel | Unloaded | Loaded |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEO | 41,800 lbs / 20,730 kgs | M 0.78 | 9hr 30m / 4,350 nm | 19hr 20m / 8,800 nm | 13hr 36m / 6,200 nm |
| LR | 57,100 lbs / 25,900 kgs | M 0.78 | 13hr 00m / 5,900 nm | 24hr 45m / 11,350 nm) | 17hr 54m / 8,200 nm |
| XLR | 68,788 lbs / 31,202 kgs | M 0.78 | 15hr 37m / 7,100 nm | 28hr 35m / 13,100 nm | 21hr 00m / 9,600 nm |
Flight Profile (East): FL290 (100%-0%)
Flight Profile (West): FL280 (100%-0%)
Of all the numbers that have been reported on this forum, these are certainly some of them. For reference, this unassuming narrowbody is the 7th longest range aircraft in the game both unloaded (slotting between the ER 777 brothers) and loaded (slotting between the MD-11 and A350-900ULR). The LR is 10th unloaded and 13th loaded, and the NEO is 20th unloaded and 17th loaded.
Note: there is a general range inflation amongst newer IF aircraft, so the fact that this little narrowbody is a 777 fighter definitely says something.
What’s more important is how this compares to real life. Using official Airbus numbers, a 0-ACT NEO using the same loadout should have a range of 2,800 nm. A 3-ACT LR should have a range of 4,000 nm. The plot I used did not have the XLR on it, but Airbus quotes 4,700 nm. If you’re keeping score, the NEO has 2.2x the range of IRL, the LR has 2.05x, and the XLR has 2x.
This puts these three definitively at the top of the outranging-your-IRL-counterpart-competition, beating out the next non-legacy passenger jet by a wide margin (77L with 1.6x).
Many of you detail-oriented ones will notice that the NEO takes after its CEO counterpart with step climbing being a detrimental endeavor. Therefore, you would think that if you follow Simbrief like most people will, you will burn more fuel and bring the range more in line with IRL. You’d be correct, but I used the word more for a reason there.
I generated a whole bunch of XLR, LR, and NEO XMLs of varying flight lengths to determine an average “suggested” step climb route given by Simbrief, and then created a fuel burn profile on those assumptions.
| Variant | Game Fuel | Unloaded | Loaded | Simbrief | Range Factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEO | 9hr 30m / 4,350 nm | 19hr 20m / 8,800 nm | 13hr 36m / 6,200 nm | 9hr 12m / 4,100 nm | 1.46 |
| LR | 13hr 00m / 5,900 nm | 24hr 45m / 11,350 nm) | 17hr 54m / 8,200 nm | 12hr 33m / 5,700 nm | 1.43 |
| XLR | 15hr 37m / 7,100 nm | 28hr 35m / 13,100 nm | 21hr 00m / 9,600 nm | 14hr 57m / 6,800 nm | 1.45 |
Now, numbers in the 1.4-1.5 range, while towards the high end, are not unheard of. The difference is, those planes would probably have that number decreased by following their Simbrief profiles as well.
With the Simbrief profile, the NEO no longer has more range than the IRL XLR. It’s also carrying 40% less fuel, and with the addition of a single 5,000 lb ACT would match it.
A possible problem?
Obviously, this in itself is not a problem. Plenty of planes in this game have too much range, and it makes discovering the easter eggs is more fun. The difference here is, look at the scaling between high and low weights. At the same altitude, high load burns 2.5x as much as low load. In most IF planes, this number is closer to like 1.25x. When you follow that convention but just have too much power, your fuel burn is a little bit lower for the entire curve. This makes setting a Simbrief airframe with a fuel factor easy. My worry with this is that with so much variance, you will have to adjust the fuel factor based on flight length, which is a much more cumbersome and odd thing to have to do (shorter flight = more negative).
Note: these are all taken at one altitude, and because of differing fuel curve structures may not directly translate to range calculations (ie, you can’t say from this that the IRL A320 has 20% less range than IF). Focus on trend, not exact numbers.
The A320 has always felt to have the most normal fuel curve in the game, which this supports. It holds constant basically the entire range down. The 77L, while a low burner, also holds somewhat steady the whole way down. Its range comes from just having low burn overall, rather than rapidly decreasing burn. The NEO drops an entire 20+ percentage points across the range. In other words, at the lighter end it’s burning just 60% of what a plane with a constant fuel factor would.
Conclusion
Use it as an ACJ, use it as your Project Sunrise Vessel, use it to make your neighbor who just bought a 15-hour 737 MAX very sad. Go crazy!
definitely saving this for future reference
