Is there fuel dump in a321neo?
Like most narrowbodies, no.
4 Likes
Most narrowbodies, including the Neo, can’t dump fuel.
2 Likes
Maybe this one should though seeing as you could very much be above MLW using Simbrief numbers bc of the lack of fuel burn
1 Like
Does it really matter if you land above MLW? There’s no violation penalty for it.
And before someone says you can’t use APPR above MLW, just use LNAV NAV1 and fly the glide slope manually. it’s a useful skill.
Or another solution is plan in Simbrief with enough margin to the MLW value so that the lower fuel burn in game still has you end up below it.
3 Likes
As I agree with you for “in game” there’s to many ultra realistic players here. In most, not all airlines an overweight landing is considered an emergency procedure (NKS and AA). Side note, the 320 isn’t certified for overweight auto lands.
Or they could get the fuel burn somewhere even close to correct and we wouldn’t need to have this conversation
1 Like
There is that, yes…
I will say that because of the relatively high MLW you’d probably be pretty hard pressed to get into this situation, but it can happen. Especially if you’re following the plane’s most efficient altitudes and not Simbrief, carrying a normal load on anything over like 5-6 hours is going to result in you being above MLW. I filed up BOS-LAX for 6 hours and it says 38k lbs ish block fuel for a TOW of about 195k lbs. My math says you’d only need about 22500 lbs to make the trip at Simbrief altitudes for a LW of 172.5k lbs (MLW is 174.6). Simbrief altitudes in this plane are like 20% efficiency loss, so imagine if you fly optimally you’d be way over.
Where the fuel prediction inside Infinite Flight can get a little hard to figure out is that the A321neo has an exceptionally high cruise speed range. Depending on the cost index, flight time, whether “LRC” is chosen, etc. I’ve had Simbrief give me anywhere from M0.73-M0.80 in the A321neo over 50+ flights across a variety of loads and conditions.
A lower cruise speed at the same altitude would mean a higher angle of attack, therefore more engine power required to maintain that speed → higher fuel burn. Then there’s the seemingly slightly weird thrust → fuel burn curve on the A321neo to make that even more difficult to track.
The exact numbers might be difficult but the trend is pretty clear. No way to sugarcoat that. Unless you want to find me a profile of speeds and altitudes that comes within 10%?
Agreed.