777x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
In search of information of the size of the proposed A3XX, I was looking at the airbus web site, and found the following information
A3XX-50 A3XX-100 A3XX-200
----------- ---------- ----------
normal pax 480 555 656
max pax 608 840 840
wingspan 79.9m 79.8m 79.4m
length 67.9m 73m 73m
range 16200km 14200km 14200km
Problem is, there's a couple of things that seem strange to me, can anyone fill me in?
1) The wingspan on each variant is different, and stranger still, it shrinks as the aircraft gets larger
2) There doesn't seem to be any difference (other than normal pax load quoted) in the -100 and -200 - the max pax is the same, length the same, range the same. How do they fit the extra normal pax load in?
Aerokid From Belgium, joined Jun 2000, 348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1754 times:
I found following specs for the A3xx:
A3xx-50R - 481 pax over 10630 km
A3xx-100 - 555 pax over 14200 km
A3xx-100R - 555 pax over 16200 km
A3xx-100F - 150 tonnes of freight over 10630 km
A3xx-200 - 656 pax over 14200 km
A3xx-Combi - 473 pax and 38 tonnes of freight over 13500 km
Jane's All The World's Aircraft (the bible of a/c specs) states the following data for the A3xx:
Wingspan: 79.00 m for all versions
Length: 70.80 m for all -100 versions and 77.40 for the -200 version
The A3xx-50R is not yet mentioned by this book (1997-1998 edition)
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1738 times:
The larger wingspan is essentially for the long-range variants that will fly 550-600 pax over 9000 miles. The longer-fuselage higher capacity variants will only fly medium haul routes (or routes currently serviced by 747-200s), so they probably don't need the more extensive wingspan.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6238 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
To me those different wing span figures might look right. I think that the basic wing structure would be the same on all versions, but they have different MTOW. And also the long range version will have a different weight distribution - more fuel in the wing and less payload in the fuselage which relaxes wing stress.
The higher weight versions will need a slightly shorter wing in order to put the same maximum alowable stress on the wing structure. It will of course compromise the field performance.
Seen the other ways around, the lighter versions can have a slight wing extentsion and still stay within the max. stress figures, and thereby have a slightly improved field performance.
Wing span has a trimendous impact on field performance. The last foot on the wing tip also puts a trimendous load on the wing structure.
You may see the same on a few glider aircrafts. Some gliders come with short and long wing extensions. With the long wing extensions only a limited quantity of water ballast is allowed for better speed performance. There is also one old German glider, the SB-10, a two seat glider which can only fly with the long wing extensions when the back seat is empty.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm