Airbus A321 - becoming an ace of trumps
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июн 2021
- The Airbus A321 is a medium-range passenger aircraft created by Airbus in the early 1990s on the basis of Airbus A320 and is part of the family. Unlike the medium-haul A320, the A321 is a version claiming longer routes, that for a long time have been occupied by the Boeing 757. However, this desire was limited by technical and corporate capabilities.
With the advent of the NEO generation, the situation has changed drastically, and the big brother, who was previously considered practically an outsider, may now become one of the foundations of Airbus commercial aviation. Let's see how it manages that.
Thank you for watching!
Subscribe to the channel, comment, like!
If you want to support Skyships and our work, welcome to our Patreon. We will create some special content for you there: / skyships
Our Facebook: / skyshipscom 
Авто/Мото
😂🤣😂🤣😂 “Look who’s talking you champions of safety…”
I started laughing too lol
Russian humor has to be respected!
Rough timestamp 10:50
HAHA! XD
get wrecked, Boeing lol
People talk about the narrow cabin width (comfort) of this plane for long flying distances, but I remember many years ago, flying a narrower Boeing 757 transatlantic between Amsterdam and Toronto. In fact, the A321 LR/XLR is 7 inches wider than the similar-range 757, which it is replacing. So each A321 seat can get an additional inch of width, over a 757.
I literally just flew on a Delta A-321 today, I was watching your A-320 video from 3 years ago while waiting to board.
Delta was extremely interested in the Boeing NMA even wanting to be the first operator. They wanted input on the design. Since that evaporated, I guess they have moved on to Airbus and the A321 and A321 NEO. They no longer have any Boeing Aircraft on order but plan to operate their refurbished B757 and B767-400s for the next few years. (They are awesome with the new interiors; I flew on both last month). Boeing screwed up more than the B737-MAX, they also forfeited Future Sales.
Testament to the late stage of corporate America
@@ecoRfan Yep - just in it for the investors in NYC at this point.
“Look who’s talking, you champions of safety” 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
Timestamp 10:50
Airbus Salesman: *Slaps roof of A321* This badboy can fit so many fuel tanks in it.
Of course to promote the aircraft they chose gorgeous Aeroflot stewardesses.
nah, that was Aeroflot promoting their aircraft
Lol " Champions of Safety " 🤣 they deserve that.
The 757 could have been the plane to modernize and build upon as it was newer than the 737. There was not much economics to benefit from without drastically changing the 737 physically. Airbus has in its DNA that ability to make changes on the planes it designs; from the beginning, versatility was all around, all the way to the luggage containers; flexibility was key in order to reduce the cost of operations whether for airfares, maintenance, repairs, or even the airports costs and insurance. I won’t be surprised if that philosophy inspired other entities outside aviation to evolve beyond their traditional business models.
We now see Air Transat flying A321 from Montreal to Paris or Lyon. I would make a fleet of A220, A321 XLR and A350. Forget about the Max, this is like riding a revamped Belair in Cuba.
Answering where this habit came from is very easy: since the A32x NEO proved to be very flexible, they can adapt it to serve a wide range of needs with a minimal investment and with no or minimal overhead costs to airlines. They would be mad not to take the money that's lying on the ground in front of them, especially since that strategy had mode than paid off by creating a massive headache for Boeing and virtually driving the COMAC out of the Western market before it was even released into production.
4700 nautical miles is well over 8 hours endurance. 8 hours endurance is the maximum efficient endurance for a plane of this size. At any distance materially greater than 8 hours of flight time, two crews must be carried. In this setting, the optimum balance between seat cost and crew cost mandates a larger aircraft.
Airlines might be making enquiries about such a jet, but they aren't paying deposits. Routinely a paper order for an A321neo can be converted into an order for an A321ceo or even an A320ceo if desired. This is especially true if the new aircraft's performance falls short of expectations.
Yeah it almost seems like the limits are being pushed by adding as much extra fuel tank capacity possible to what is already a stretched design, whether that compromise is performance or capacity.
@@ecoRfan That is true, but keep in mind the 737 platform is being stretched even further from its original design objectives. For a given level of engine performance, the A320 design will stretch further than the B737 design, because of negative static stability and more clearance between nacelle and runway. Already the largest 737s are needing a very high approach speed and any increase in empty weight will increase that landing speed further. This was one reason why the 737 was unsuitable for the new airport at Sant Helena, for example.
Ah snap!! Sky does it again with another great production💯 Ty Sky and fast flights and soft landings to you too. 🙂
I think the next generation of clean sheet designs will aim for the size of the A321 with options down and up. The A220 has demonstrated the benefit of having a smaller dedicated aircraft, and the A321 size allows you to reach both the Small segment and the MMA
At this rate it will be 2050 if we're lucky.
I remember when market analysts (and even Airbus to an extent) thought that the XLR would be a niche aircraft. Much like they got screwed with the downfall of hub-spoke models and the A380, I think airlines complete investment in point-to-point has ironically handed Airbus an unexpected gift in remarkable XLR sales.
Again, this was supposed to be a niche aircraft.
Then again it was also strategic in that it forced Boeing’s hand with some sort of NMA solution.
It would have remained a niche aircraft... if Boeing hadn't been undecided for years and years about the NMA. I'm neither a Boeing Basher nor Anti Airbus, but you can't deny that it was a master stroke from the Toulouse crowd. While Boeing was still playing is yes-no-maybe-I-dunno-bugger game, Airbus simply pulled the rug right from under its feet in the MOM segment.
"Analysts" pfft
@@twiff3rino28 Analysts: experts who will explain tomorrow why what they forecast yesterday didn't happen today.
@@jacobzimmermann59 Exactly - and they make good money with this schtick, especially in times of economic turmoil like this current pandemic 😔
@@twiff3rino28 I was listening to an "economist" on the radio who explained that there were two possible scenarios for the post-covid years: according to him, either the economy will rebound quickly, or we were in for several years of stagnation. I wonder how much does Captain Obvious get paid for such profound insight.
Thanks for making this video skyship, perfect timing!! riding neo from Dallas to Fairbanks for 6.5 hours next week up front can't wait.
The XLR is easily the biggest update to the airframe since 1988.
Sky, I love your content! What ever happened to the Yak 42? You did a great job describing the Yak 40. I hoped you would follow it with the Yak 42. Please consider!
I second that!
You're videos are alway a joy to watch! Beautiful videos, great stories.
Your videos are just excellent ...
Thanks for the upload
Muy buen video, gracias. Spasiva .
This is the 737 of Airbus, albeit killing nobody.
They're basically milking the most out of the a32X fuselage for max market diversification in a point to point based route paradigm
Wish Boeing re-engined the 757 and made a 757-400 NG/MAX. They could easily increase the range to 5000 NM.
@@Dave-dh7rt why 400 though? Do you mean a stretched fuselage or just an updated 757 the size of the 200
@@Dave-dh7rt it would require much more than that. In addition to aerodynamics the Airbus lineup is far more efficient with space, both in cabin and fuel layouts. The aircraft is also significantly lighter (~50k lbs) and uses some composite structures.
Plus you can’t just bump raw specs… safety and redundancy as well as better cockpit ergonomics (large LCD screens with fully integrated FBW, complete triple redundant systems and flight protections, etc) are also big selling points.
I also don’t think there is currently an engine being offered in that power class, plus Boeing’s own CONSTANT mention of an NMA essentially destroys any potential for a 757 MAX type plane.
Also there’s the issue of commonality which wasn’t brought up in the video - airlines LOVE being able to train pilots on a type that can essentially do almost anything they need. The same goes for their maintenance teams and parts depots, etc. Bringing the 757 back in any form would be a logistical nightmare for most airlines.
@@EstorilEm Plus the 757 is long out of production, and the tooling is long gone. I see a lot of people on RUclips suggest a new 757 building programme but that would require not only re-tooling, but re-certification of a 50-year old design if it could ever happen.
@@owenshebbeare2999 38 year old design, not 50 (1983).
The A320 is a 34 year old design by comparison (1987).
I love the soundtrack! 👍
If A321XLR launches with all premium economy class (no economy), not only it will fly farther but will also be more comfortable than wide body economy class but at same price of ticket.
I really like your videos 😍
One thing Airbus has yet to figure out on this family of airframes is the durability of the fuel control panels for the fuelers. Not fun having to drip-stick these planes when panels aren't working. They should've standardized the location of the fuel control panels for all of them instead of letting fuelers always having to figure out if the panel is on the wing with the SPR or on the belly side.
The XLR is pretty much the final thing that can be done out of it before it needs replacing
That's not true, they can yet switch to a composite wing. Airbus has always said that the A32x had one more generation left.
@@jacobzimmermann59 Agree again Jacob. The frame still has much room for improvement from the "current" 1988 configuration.
@@twiff3rino28 It's not exactly the 1988 configuration, there is more to the Neo than just new engines. But this is all unless Boeing forces Airbus' hand. Boeing is now under huge pressure to launch an all-new narrowbody in the 150-200 seats class sooner rather than later. Airbus will have to respond and an improved A32x, good as it may be, might just not be good enough.
@@jacobzimmermann59 I'm mainly referring to the -200 variant wing first flown 1988, not the -100 from 1987 (which entered service in early '88). Even the XLR will use the '88 -200 wing with modified flaps. The systems and flight deck also have much room for modernization, and being a native FBW design makes it much easier to port technology from the A350 and even A220.
I do wonder if Boeing is even willing to work on a new NB within the next decade? It seems the single aisle market does not want to change from the status quo of the early '90s (A320 vs. 737).
@@twiff3rino28 Boeing has to work on a new narrowbody, it has no choice. Regardless of whether they ultimately make money with the MAX, this is the end of the line for the venerable 737 series. On the other hand the A32x still has room for improvement, so Boeing must develop a new aircraft or they would have nothing to counter it with in the most competitive and lucrative segment of the market. That's just unthinkable.
The FBW and cockpit modernisation is an interesting question and I have been wondering about that too. If there ever is another A32x generation, it will have to receive substantial upgrades in those areas in order to be certified. If they develop a clean sheet replacement instead, then it's a no brainer. But Airbus now has two different state of the art cockpit designs and FBW systems, the A220 and the A350. Will they unify the A32x (or successor) with the A220 to have commonality across their single aisle families, or will they go for the A350 style for commonality across the middle of the market-widebody families?
The thing is ,the A321 LR has somewhat wierd handling charactistics during landing , it likes to drop suddenly after retarding the throttle,also the auto-thrust is nowhere near as responsive as the CEO ,during approches the speed is always off buy around 10 knots.of course pilots can learn to deal with the changes but these two factors combines sometimes makes it really quite difficult in windy conditions.The good thing about them is that the vls is 10 knots slower during approaches ,so for most situations pilots prefer flying the CEO apart from approaches at high altittude airfields . By creating the A321 XLR the 320 palttform has reached its capability limit i'm afraid.
@@Sacto1654 the 320 family has "control laws" for example with all 321 LRs during landing it's "landing law" meaning the movement of the horizontal stablizer directly correlates to the back and forth movement of the control stick while the roll control remains like "normal law" .In normal law the input from the stick only tells the computers to change the current state of the aircraft and with the stick at neutral position the computers will do their best to maintain present pitch ,roll etc,this is all fine except for landing ,the pilot would expect pulling the stick back and holding off instead of setting the attitude and releasing the stick ,so "landing law" has to be introduced. threrefore the handling charastics during landing must have someting to do with the weight/lift balance at different speeds,and i doubt changing the logic of fly-by-wire system will help much
And now it's time to add the A322, a stretched A321 based on the XLR, but with 24 more seats, plus transcontinental USA or US East Coast to Europe range.
It'll need a new wing most likely - the 1988 wing is too small and outdated to get that extra performance.
@@twiff3rino28 then again Boeing is doing the 737 MAX 10... right to the end of the runway
Ian McAllister: A322 is fake. Airbus should make A321XERs the extra extended range A321NEOs
0:09 'neo' is not a prefix, it's obviously a suffix ;-)
Super
The information on the ACTs (Additional Center Tanks) at 08:10 is not correct, in that they are not unique to the NEOs. The two ACTs aft of the wing were an option on the -200 series that was taken up on virtually every aircraft; given that there were only about 90 A321-100 aircraft produced (and less than a dozen still in service) and that virtually every A321-200 has the two optional ACTs aft of the wing, for all practical purposes one can assume that all A321 CEOs have those two tanks.
Conversely the forward (third) ACT is not standard on the NEO but rather is an option for the A321LR model. American Airlines, which is the world’s largest operator of the A321, has about 45 A321 NEOs in service so far, none of which have the forward (third) ACT. American is also taking delivery of ETOPS A321 NEOs that may have the forward tank, but as best I know right now will not.
American Airlines A321 NEOs will not get increased fuel capacity over the standard A321 CEO until taking delivery of the XLR variant, which will have an even larger permanent Rear Center Tank in place of the two aft ACTs and which is roughly equivalent to four ACTs, or doubling the aft ACT fuel capacity, while the forward ACT will still remain available as an option.
After all that, the short version is: All 321s - CEO and NEO - have the two extra tanks behind the wing, while some NEOs may add the option of a third tank forward of the wing.
A321 SXLR …super xtra long range.
Thank you for all that information. I couldn't sit on a short body plane for more that a few hours it's just too uncomfortable. I did a flight in A321 took 4 and a half hours never again I could not feel my legs after it and my neck and back was in so much pain.ther was 198 passages on that flight .
Meanwhile in 2039:
A321 XLR LR NEO XWB XLR
A350 XWB NEO XLR LR XLR
And still no NMA
@@migrocha The NMA will be released in 2,000 years
Boeing dropped the ball on the 757 replacement.
Great video! What music did you use at the beggining?
You could make video about every plane out there and we would still watch ir
Could you please make a video dedicated to the British Aerospace ATP? It seems to be such an underrated aircraft for its performance
A380 : absolute BEST long haul aircraft for economy. A321 XLR is going to be a cattle carrier
Why so many versions....she's just that good 😏😉
The A321lr or A321xlr coupled with the A321neo is a good companions to the A220-100/300 or the A320neo and the A330neo and/or A350
They have a very solid lineup right now… the 330 still has its place but airlines are very much either point to point or large / maximum efficient long haul widebody it seems.
The 330 was really remarkable for its time, but is a tough sell today, especially with mainline airlines dumping and retiring so many models into the after market for smaller airlines to pick up.
It would be a nightmare travelling long distances on a single aisle plane. Think about long queues for the Lavatory!
9:52 what is that cylindrical frame ?
I remember seeing pictures about 30 years ago of air India's first a320's they had a 4 wheel landing gear set up on the main wheels they had this so they good spread the weight out on there poor runways why not put it on the 321 for more weight the pilots would love it for the extra braking and it would make it look like a 757
Hey sky, love the videos so far but can't we go back to videos on fighter jets
Hes probably sitting on some good stuff lol
Airbus didn't listen to Boeing as it already had experience of RCT's on the long range A340-500.
I predict the A220-100, 300 and new 500 & 700 will replace the A319, A320 and A321 and a new highly modified A321 will be branded as the A322XLR-100 & 200 will replace all the Boeing 757’s.
No, the A220 cannot replace the A320 family. It is a smaller plane
@@aarondynamics1311 the planned 500 & 700 larger wing & stretched fuselage can and will.
@@icare7151 They cannot. They might be able to match the capacity of the A320neo/A321neo, but they will certainly fall short on range like the 737 MAX 10. Airlines love the A321neo because of how flexible it is, and it wouldn't make sense to replace it with an aircraft that will never match the range of even the LR, let alone the XLR. The -700 variant would also suffer from the same problem the 757-300 suffered from - it takes ages to board/disembark passengers due to it's length. I think an A220-500 would work, but not as an A320neo replacement. It would be the perfect aircraft for short haul routes that needs more seats than the A220-300 while the A320neo would be for routes with similar demand but longer range
@@aarondynamics1311 The A321LR and A321XLR should be renamed the A322-100 and A322-300 series.
An A220-700 would replace the A321neo.
@@icare7151 In my previous comment, I mentioned that the reason why the A321neo is so attractive to airlines is due to its flexibility: the A321neo family can either fly long range or fly high demand, short range routes. Also, the A321neo has a common type rating with the A320neo, meaning that airlines can operate lower demand routes as well as the routes operated by the A321neo with a single group of pilots. If the A220-500 and -700 were to replace the A320neo and A321neo, airlines would need 2 groups of pilots to operate the same routes, which would counteract the savings brought about by the small increase in efficiency.
I think you could have expanded a little more on useful load and field performance. The performance when loaded up is why the 757 is such a king.
It's performance is supposed to be similar to the standard A321neo due to an optimized wing/flap configuration
Here i am again, asking for a video about DC3
You should make one.
New Zealand! 10:03
0:31 what is that thing hanging on rudder?
I had a a Airplane on my Credit Report & I know nothing about Airplanes & I’m not part of Government but was used in the uk in trade💔
Airbus should consider building the A321 with a seating arrangement of 2-2-2 for long distance flight to improve passenger comfort....just sayin'.
So widening the fuselage? I don’t think that’s going to happen, also aisles are wasted space, airlines would more than likely still go for 3-3
3:37 that’s not an airbus wing. That was a 767-400 wing. You can see the raked wingtip. It’s the only aircraft that has that well the 787 does also. Actually that’s probably what that wing was based on the smaller size
An inboard aileron too. Could be 767-400 or 777 LR. Lots of 737 wings in the vid too (not that it matters).
Airbus should make A321ERs and A321XERs
What is ER and ULR ?
TIL that NEO stand for "New Engine Option"
10:50 lol
Airbus and Boeing should hire Sky and get rid of their marketing departments who are just screwing around on the phones all day looking at pictures of their wives’ boyfriends’ wives.
Another excellent video. Thank you!
Boeings biggest mistake I feel was killing the 757. They could have maybe looked at a 757NG - with Dreamliner cockpit, cleaned up airframe, a version of the Dreamliner wings and of course new generation engines...with no ground clearance problems.
As for A321XLR I'll never want to fly for 10hr+ on this narrow drainpipe. It will be utter misery. Just one aisle, imagine the constant lines for the toilets, FAs trying to do their job etc. Also what about crew rest area? The only way to do that will be to reserve seats. On a budget airline the seats will be horrible. On airlines like Jet Blue theres the excellent Mint.
So the experience on these planes depends on the airline you are on. But even then theres no escaping the fact that you are on a narrow tube for a long long time. I have been on a 6hr 50 min flight on an A320NEO..never again. I for one will happily pay more to go on a widebody. Excellent video friend, subbed!
Their mistake wasn't killing the 757. Their mistake was not having a replacement for it. I'm willing to bet that if they kept the 757 going with newer versions, we would've seen something similar to what happened to the MAX.
@@Juan444tv The 57 and its much higher ground clearance I think would have meant they would not face the same issues as they did with the 737 design? Just like Airbus didnt when they stuck fat fans under the A320 series to make NEO.
While I agree that Boeing should look at a new design a modded cleaned up 57 might just have worked. They didnt think so of course and that was the end of that. Just glad I got to fly on one!
What about ULR ?
What do I do with a NEO 😊
Airbus isn't the only one making many versions of the A321Neo Family Boeing have the Boeing 737 Max 8,Max 9,Max 7 & Max 10X all five versions of them if not maybe six if there's a Max 200.
That’s a difference! Like Boeing has the MAX 7,8,9 and 10, Airbus has the A319/320/321neo. The LR or XLR is a subversion in that sense. If Boeing DID the same they would have something like a 737 MAX 9ER or something like that, but so far they only have a lineup comparable to the A320neo family without the LR and XLR
@@spongebubatz the Airbus A321XER would be the Extra extended range A321NEO long then the A321NEO the A321LR and the A321XLR
✔
Stuff Airbus, Boeing, the airlines with their long range and efficiency, make the seats a minimum 25% wider and the pitch 25% longer!
they're doing a doozy like boeing and the 737
The only difference is that their base can handle these modifications
@@spongebubatz indeed, starting on the high clearance of the wing and landing gear construction, having in mind the modern airports of the 80s
But.... Not enough Wheels on its main Boogies! 101 Tons, SIX total Wheels? Think long term.
If it needed more wheels Airbus would have added them. They've done it before with Indian Airlines's A320s
XLR is the beginning of the end for wide bodies on trans continental routes just like the 737 was the beginning of the end of widebodies on domestic routes.The flexibility of flying multiple narrowbodies on a route instead of one widebody can't be beat.Except very long or very congested routes which is at best 30% of the widebody market there will be no way a 777 or an A350 can compete with the XLR and future Boeing and in time Airbus narrow bodies.We are unlikely to see another new cleansheet widebody being developed by A&B going forward.
JAL and ANA will always want to have widebodies on domestic flights
It takes gas to haul gas. at some point it's just a flying gas can with seats
Pretty much every aircraft is, but you’re right, the longer you’re flying/the higher your take off weight is, the more fuel you burn to transport fuel
321st
Why do airbus jets make a muffled dog barking sound? Know what I'm talking about? Is it the sound of the gears or the vertical and horizontal stabilizers adjusting? I swear I hear it on every type of airbus jet I fly but I never hear it on boeing jets.
Is he saying 321st?
10 hours on a IL62 is more comfortable
Isn't it INSANELY ignorantly DANGEROUS to fly THREE air liners SO close together!!!!!!? Second question; HOW on earth did they get those AWESOME aireile sky shots of the airliners flying through the sky???? I know there are drones today... How did they do that WAY back in the 1990's & up through any time that there were not any drones yet??? Helicopters did NOT fly that high!!!!!!!!!!! I SERIOUSLY wanna know exactly how they did that please. And thanks Question 3:What's going on here..What about ELECTRIC Jetliners /Airbus?? Where are THEY?
Such flight maneuvers are done with a lot of practice and planning. Most times the aircraft are followed by an aircraft the size of a business jet which has an external camera installed which can be operated from the inside.
@@spongebubatz Awesome =o) Thanks much!
The technology for electric airliners is not here yet
@@aarondynamics1311 Okay. Though that does not make much sense. Thanks.
Saw some click bait about a329. Lol
A321 neo xl xlr
How many versions of the Boeing 737 have there been?
Loads
737-200 300 400 500 800 8K 8max and I think 5 max idk
@@aviationin4k258 There is the 737-100 through -900, Max-7 through Max-10, plus the BBJ and the military variants, the C-40, T-43, P-8, and the AEW&C... that's what 15 different models.
This is over a 54 year career though, compared to the A320's 40 years or so.
@@erictaylor5462 all the other versions are just based on "normal" 737s and I wouldn’t call them own versions in that sense, although they had to go severe modifications
4 generations including those with the May Crash Any Second “feature”
Lots.
The latest being the new “uncontrollable pitch up” model. 😂
Smartphone Industry: First time?
There is never enough. Hech look at b737 how many models do they have?. I'd rather fly on an Airbus a321xlr then an Airbus a220 ha ha.
It’s true that the 737 had more variants, but let me ask you: how many versions had a specific 737 version?
So why not name the versions A320 ××× , etc., instead of A318, A319, A321, and so on
That’s just the way it was done, I see your point but knowing the A320 family like it it and being used to it calling them like A320-100 to A320-400 sounds rather weird
Halim Talafuka,Alhamdulillahirobbil Alamiin,Allahumma Amiin.@$#.
How about giving them 4 wheels bouge like indian ailines initial A320
The gear can still accommodate the weight
@@spongebubatz it’s not the weight by itself, it’s what is known as “floatation” or how much weight is on each wheel, or more specifically, the contact patch of each tire. The early Indian 320s had four-wheel bogies to allow them to land on grass and dirt runways. As it turns out that’s not likely to happen anymore, at least with the NEOs, as the bottom lip of the new engines is less than two feet off the ground. Coupled with the higher amount of suction in those big motors at takeoff (or worse, max reverse) flying a NEO into an unprepared runway would essentially be like operating a pair of 30,000 hp* vacuum cleaners - they’ll suck every rock, stick, and small animal within a couple of feet of the intakes through at least the fan section, turning the 30,000 hp vacuum cleaner into a 30,000 hp Cuisinart……Since it makes no sense to operate the airplane from unprepared fields, in turn there’s no need use four-wheel bogies.
Floatation is a term I learned from an army tanker who was explaining that an M1 Abrams MBT - despite its massive weight - puts about as much pressure on the ground as a human being, (and less than a dog - you’ll know that if a large dog has ever stepped on your foot). As it turns out he was correct for a human that was walking; a human standing stationary is about half the pressure of a tank, while a passenger car is twice the pressure of a tank. An Airbus’s tires place five to six times the pressure on the ground as a tank, and Navy aircraft.
* Technically jet engines are rated in lbf thrust, not horsepower, and they are not the same thing, though lbf thrust does coincide with horsepower in steady state flight at about 300 kts.
@@Pupda I know the reasons why Air India had some A320s with that special feature, I just wanted to say that the A321XLR wouldn’t need a two bogey landing gear as the gear can still carry the weight!
Thanks a lot for your very detailed comment!
I believe that the a321 main landing gear is bigger in diameter to that of the a318, a319 and a320. Having the bigger main landing gear allows for the extra weight to be accommodated - so no need for the double bogey landing gear
And for the Airbus A321 salesman, it would be like selling a few versions of Viagra. How far you want it to go, Sir?
3:27 Why you cheating us with a 777 wing??? 🤣
because we all know the boeing 777 wing is more superior .
@@GabbieGirl007 superior of what ? B52 ? Yes. A 350 no !
@@alainmare8081 B777-200LR has more range than the A350 wake up kid
@@GabbieGirl007 I’d like to be a kid which I’m not anymore, i’m afraid.
777 is a good plane of course, nobody cant argue. But it is an older generation. For the moment it’s one of the Boeing’s problem. They recycled old concepts because of shareholders pressure. So, at least as a good competitor they have to look at customer wishes instead of Wall Street reaction. Then we can talk. By the way 777 is costing 20% more in fuel consumption than A350 which, for companies makes indeed a big difference even if you are unconditional buy American !
@@alainmare8081 you make interesting points sorry for the kid part that is unprofessional i must admit
. also I mean the A350 isn't flying short ranges I think its safe to say that we need planes like the 767 but that have the range of a B77L , I guess the ultra high-bypass jet engines are gonna work that out .
as much as i love aviation, i like skies without contrails even more, before corona it was really bad, there were so many contrails they started blocking the sun
Where do you live that they were blocking the sun!?
There's an unwritten rule between airlines that you don't do down the safety of other airlines. Boeing are under pressure but what statement to make! Americans have no sense of irony. However, if you look at the history of development, Airbus are just doing what Boeing did. Let's push the existing design to the limit.
The only safe max is one sitting on the tarmac
A321XLR - The boeing killer.
The A321 doesn't have the lower take off weight and faster performance the the 757 which is why Delta is updating their 757 for flying into the next decade. American and United are also holding on to their 757's for the same reason. A fully loaded 757 can take off at 140 mph 20% lower than the 321. Plus it has higher flying speed (over 600 mph) and can maneuver altitudes faster than any other plane made today. which is why the airlines are hesitant to retire a plane that gets the job done particularly on South America and Hawaii routes. It's hard to find a plane that can service small airports, hot airports and high airports where the air is thinner of which the 757 can handle all 3 at once. The 321 runs less expensively but gives up on performance. I hope Boeing makes the perfect replacement with real future growth in aviation will be India, South America and Africa. But with the impending war none of this will matter for the next decade.
"Impending war"? What war? Plus the supposed "higher flying speed" is irrelevant in these days where economy rules. Outside the US the 757 was rare, and the newest are 16 years old.
I prefer Chinese guys
I learnt to manage my money through investments and it really works for me.
There are so many ways to manage and prepare for a relaxing future, we just always have to keep doing our best because whatever we plant now, we will harvest later good or bad
Nice good investment is how you take charge of your financial security. It allows you to grow your wealth but also generate an additional income stream if needed ahead of retirement
For beginners it's advisable to get a coach, an expert trader who would serve as a coach and mentor to ensure you make profits and increase your accuracy when you make trades in that way you get to make money with low risk or loosing your capital
@interesting, I'm guessing you are an expert, can I trade through you
@@jeremysanchez5545 @lol I'm not, I also trade with an expert trader through Expert Anthony trading company... They have help me earn a total of $53k in two months with an investment of $6k
Airbus > Boeing
A320 A321 beats B737 and 757
The rich baseball commercially walk because fuel lally mark near a jagged search. noiseless, dynamic step-grandfather
Trump = Crashes
I love this channel, but the English narration is just weird. I appreciate Sky takes a lot of of pride in his channel and his command of English, but he would really benefit from some professional translation and editing
I disagree
I like to listen to different accents. And as a side note I really not enjoying the US English channels where everything is super, hyper and bigger. 😉
I could be confusing him with the Estonian chemistry guy Thoisoi, but I think he tried an English narrator, but massive backlash caused a swift switch back to narrating it himself. Even if I am wrong, he might have taken notice.
Halim Talafuka,Alhamdulillahirobbil Alamiin,Allahumma Amiin.@$#.
I cannot stand this AC, I feel bad for the poor cows packed into this trash.
How can you judge a plane that hasn't even entered service