Open Letter/Suggestion regarding the A321neo

1
Not withstanding the following requests.

Airbus A321LR
Airbus A321XLR

The Problem:

Seeing as the A320/321neo has been confirmed, the forum has had a surplus of livery requests within the last few days, especially for the A21N. If my memory serves correctly, there’s an undefined limit to how many liveries a single aircraft model may possess. However, there’s at least 50 or more requests existing for the A321neo, some even for the longer range variants. The A321neo is known for its versatility, short and medium haul to even longer routes. These longer routes are possible only with the LR and XLR. The unfortunate reality is that some liveries make the cut while others do not. But, if possible, I think there’s a way to compromise.

The Proposal:

Simply put, I think the A321neo should be separated into its 3 sub variants - the standard, long range, extended long range. This allows to have a wider range of liveries specific to appropriate operators: standard neo operators featured on the standard, long range operators featured on the long range model, and so on. And I think there are good reasons for doing such.

1. Technical differences between each variant.

While the basic philosophy is more fuel = more range, there are differences which go beyond this. The standard A321neo has a MTOW of 93.5T (93,500kg). The long range has a MTOW of 97T, and the extended long range a MTOW of 101T. These figures, along with the optional additional fuel tanks, has a significant impact on the payload-range for each variant. A standard neo can’t do the routes of an extended range model, and the 101 tonne MTOW is not available for the standard neo.

2. Visual differences between the variants.

While there are no external visual differences between the standard neo and the long range version, there are subtle differences between the extended long range from the other two. The XLR has an extended belly fairing aft of the wing, in thanks to the permanent Rear Center Tank in the belly of the aircraft. Additionally, the inboard flaps are single-slotted and the outboard flaps are double-slotted, whereas all flaps are double-slotted on the other variations.

A321neo/LR

Screenshot 2024-09-30 151001

A321XLR

Screenshot 2024-09-30 150723
Preparing for the A321XLR’s entry into service | Airbus

In terms of 3d modeling, i don’t expect this to be too challenging to develop. Though I don’t have much experience in this nature of 3d assembly, so take my word with a grain of salt.

3. Fairness to livery addition.

My last reason for this is for the sake of a fair compromise for livery additions. Many operators may exclusively operate the A321neo/LR/XLR. Some may operate all 3 variations at some point in time, and others only two. Segregating these models allow for more operators to be included, as opposed to bundling all variations together and meeting the “livery limit”. For example, La Compagnie operates exclusively the A321LR. If the A321 models were bundled together, this livery may have less of a chance to be featured as opposed to separating these models, which may give it a higher chance to be featured. And no, simply voting for the livery I want will not change these points anyway.

Overall, it’s nearly the same principle to having the 772ER and 777LR as separate airframes in the simulator. This topic serves as a suggestion to the developers rather than a feature request, as there’s no guarantee if the LR and XLR will be included with the A321neo. However, it’s definitely something to consider in my opinion if all 3 are to make it into the simulator.

Thank you for reading.

16 Likes
2

i feel like they could maybe code in different fuel capacity per livery first and focus on seperating models later or something

1 Like
3

I’m not entirely sure that’s possible.
Besides, doing so already completes part of the work needed to transition from the neo to the LR. This suggestion is to allow for a wider scope of liveries to be included. Else we’d run into the same issue of having a livery constraint due to congestion.

4

The b737-700 has the same fuel capacity as the b737-700bbj, so with like 15 hour southwest flights possible I’d guess not

5

They are going to opt for the A321LR as that’s a win-win situation:

  1. No external differences
  2. The same seating more or less
  3. Just adding the correct fuel amount to the weight/balance settings
  4. Liveries are based on their real life counterparts
  5. Most airlines operating the A321Neo/LR have both or ordered a variant of each
2 Likes
6

IF certainly hasn’t been shy about this in the past (for example the A350 matches the ULR’s stats, the MD-11 matches the ER’s stats, and there are like 5 or 6 other cases where they also quietly upgrade without listing it). I think running an A321LR-esque aircraft makes the most sense. It’s close enough to the base NEO to just plant the base liveries onto, and knowing IF it’ll have just enough range to complete the longest XLR routes.

8 Likes
7

Exactly my friend! 🫡😊

8

I do agree with your post, though id say its more sensible to just include the A321neo(+LR) and A321XLR as two separate aircraft.

As you said in your post, the main difference is with the XLR compared to the previous two, while the regular neo and neoLR are now basically the same plane production wise, the only difference being the LR has additional modular tanks in the cargo hold. Modular being the key word there, since its now known that regular neos can be converted to LRs, and LRs to neos only by adding/removing the extra fuel tank

4 Likes
9

I’m happy this has been said, I’d rather have the models correctly presented and separated.
Nice but needed topic.

1 Like
10

Yes in the future i am 110% sure that the XLR is represented as a stand-alone variant compared to the Neo/LR

1 Like
11

In those cases I could see the argument being made. There’s only one operator of the A350ULR, Singapore Airlines. In that case it’s acceptable especially given the fact that the current A350-900 is almost a ULR aircraft in and of itself. Same for the MD11/DC10 - older frame, easier to add all or most operators. I used the A330 in-game as a thought process for this topic, given it had operators from different eras, yet all share the same MTOW which was only made available near the end of the program.

While this would seem like the easiest and most obvious path they’d take, there will be the minority, or maybe majority, who will fuss that their favored livery didn’t make the cut. And while that will always happen regardless, this seems like an effective way to mitigate that.

Let’s say you have 4 liveries: British Aiways, Iberia, American Airlines, and Delta.
The max amount of liveries allowed for one aircraft, an imaginary number, let’s say 30 liveries.
Those 4 liveries are likely to make it into the sim, but there’s only 26 available spaces left for other liveries. If the A321neo/LR is split up with the A321XLR, British Airways and Delta can go to the A321neo/LR, and Iberia and American Airlines can go to the A321XLR, barring they or will exist soon in the actual fleet of the airline to avoid “hypothetical liveries”.

This way, the A21N family as a whole can have upwards of 40 or even 50 liveries, and for any special exemptions, A21N liveries not featured could go to the A20N if the developers deem that possible. It could be a win-win situation from my understanding.

Yes, exactly.

And don’t forget the uprated MTOW, but you get the gist.

1 Like
12

I hope you’re right, it would be cool. I just wouldn’t hold your breath. Someone in the DC asked if the staff were considering adding the LR and XLR and they got a very matter of fact answer stating that it’s just going to be the A20N and 21N. Although another staff member also implied that it’s too early into development to call so I’m not sure who to believe.

13

From an outsider point of view, I really don’t see why not. With the A320Neo being developed before it, that’s already a huge jump towards the A321Neo. The work that would need to be done is less than the jump from the 77E to the 77W. Again, that’s just from my outsider view which would not reflect real development time.

Would be a missed opportunity though.

14

It definitely is. Most of it is a longer fuselage and that’s definitely easier than having to develop a plane from scratch.

Some variants really have a lot more popularity than others.

15

I do not think liveries is a problem, since with every rework they are introducing new carriers plus with their upgrades on their severs to ensure more bandwith for storage, I personally do not see a problem! They have even planned beforehand on how to solve this problem as the next three aircrafts we are getting B38M, A320Neo/A321Neo have sh*tload of liveries!

16

I’d appreciate some concrete confirmation, else I’d expect almost every operator to be featured across A320/A321Neo, which may be highly unlikely.

17

Quite right, thanks to Airbus’ common family philosophy. Fuselage length is the main differentiator, but it’s essentially the same as the jump from A320 to A321 already in the sim.

18

Which you will have to wait for as we’re not close to needing to make such a decision yet :)

7 Likes
19

I figured as much. Not that I expect it to happen overnight, but perhaps this topic can be negotiated internally when the time for making that decision comes.

20

Note that the 737-900 is just the non-ER 737-900 but the liveries on it are that of the ER…

They might have to change the door configurations depending on livery but pretty much yes in this regard. However, unlike the A350, where the standard -900 also has the option for a 280t MTOW like the ULR, the A321neo is currently offered up to 93.5t with 2 ACT while the A321LR comes with a 97t MTOW and 3 ACT - something to keep in mind.