2 A-321's delivered Simultaneously on April 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LGA777

Senior
Jan 21, 2003
495
2
It has been a long time me thinks since US had 2 new aircraft deliveries in the same day and I thought the unique simultaneous delivery from Airbus of A-321's N519UW c/n 3881 and N196UW c/n 3879 was worth noting for the few of us on here who like positive news.

Here are some neat little details for those who find this stuff interesting.

They where airbourne from XFW (the Airbus factory airport in Hamburg) only 14 mins apart at 0849L and 0905L and landed at BGR for fuel at 1005L and 1025L only 20 mins apart.

They where airbourne from BGR for PIT at 1050L and 1105L only 15 mins apart and touched down in PIT at 1217L and 1242L 25 mins apart.

196 is in Pre-ops at PIT, 519 continued on to PHX where it is also in pre-ops

I found it interesting that the IAE V2500 powered aircraft made it's transatlantic crossing 12 mins faster than her CFM powered sister in what should have been nearly identical weather, winds, and air traffic, 7h09 mins vs 7h21 mins, and even on the short BGR-PIT leg it was 10 mins faster.

Looks like two 321 and 1 332 deliveries planned for May, 197/520/279 and two more 321 and 1 332 planned for June, 521/523/280.

I hope a few of you like me found this all interesting?

Regards

LGA777
 
LGA777 said:
I found it interesting that the IAE V2500 powered aircraft made it's transatlantic crossing 12 mins faster than her CFM powered sister in what should have been nearly identical weather, winds, and air traffic, 7h09 mins vs 7h21 mins, and even on the short BGR-PIT leg it was 10 mins faster.
Click to expand...
Does not mean anything, unless you compare routing, I doubt they were on the same track, as well as traffic conditions at either end.

With the "skid row" flight plans we now "enjoy" (dest. Milan with Zurich alternate flown at 5000 feet) I could hardly make a hypothesis unless they flew the entire route in close route (formation).
 
Now that we are one big happy company, how come the two aircraft have different tail number series....519 & 196 ??
 
freedom said:
West side calls 196 !
Click to expand...
It may be just the oppsite. The 100 numberd 321's are on the East side, so I would think that 519 is going to be a West A/C. At one time the numbering of A/C made a bit more sense that it does today. Each A/C type was numbered in series, unless there were over 100 of that type. With the current mix of East and West fleets. they are all over that place now.
 
wings396 said:
It may be just the oppsite. The 100 numberd 321's are on the East side, so I would think that 519 is going to be a West A/C. At one time the numbering of A/C made a bit more sense that it does today. Each A/C type was numbered in series, unless there were over 100 of that type. With the current mix of East and West fleets. they are all over that place now.
Click to expand...

well it's too late now , i just called it so it's OURS .
 
wings396 said:
The 100 numberd 321's are on the East side, so I would think that 519 is going to be a West A/C.
Click to expand...
It sounds as though they're going to continue the different numbering based on engine - IAE equipped with one number series and CFM a different number series.

Jim
 
Please forgive my ignorance.
Why is US still getting the same model aircraft with different engine types?
 
ussnark said:
Does not mean anything, unless you compare routing, I doubt they were on the same track, as well as traffic conditions at either end.

With the "skid row" flight plans we now "enjoy" (dest. Milan with Zurich alternate flown at 5000 feet) I could hardly make a hypothesis unless they flew the entire route in close route (formation).
Click to expand...

Perhaps the two gents who flew 519 knew that, with the autothrust disengaged, it is quite possible, in an Airbus, to fly faster than Mmo but not so fast such that the high speed protections are exceeded. This "technique" could give you an additional .02 mach and could account for the difference in flight times for the two aircraft.

Or maybe the delivery crew on 196 were just bagging time.....

What would be interesting would to know the fuel burn comparisons on these identical routes..
 
NiceLandingCaptain said:
What would be interesting would to know the fuel burn comparisons on these identical routes..
Click to expand...

All of these comparisons are meaningless unless the two airplanes were flying in fingertip formation.

It's said that the routings were identical. Were the altitudes assigned by Shanwick identical? Were the airspeeds assigned by Shanwick identical? It is possible for another airplane to request the same track and atitude and get it, thus forcing one of the A321s out of optimum for the crossing.

And the mention of identical "air traffic" conditions is so inconceivable it is a ludicrous comment.
 
NiceLandingCaptain said:
Perhaps the two gents who flew 519 knew that, with the autothrust disengaged, it is quite possible, in an Airbus, to fly faster than Mmo but not so fast such that the high speed protections are exceeded.
Click to expand...
Why ever would anyone do that?

I agree with nyc. The variables are way too numerous to trap for any such speculation.
 
ussnark said:
Why ever would anyone do that?

I agree with nyc. The variables are way too numerous to trap for any such speculation.
Click to expand...

Now think it through, snark...

Two crews, one West, one East, same hotel, sharing a little libation and bar talk in the pub the evening before leaving Hamburg on the identical routes.....

Pilots can be boys too.

Getting the picture?
 
Delivery flights are made by members of management, not line pilots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top