Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A3XX Specs  
User currently offline777x From United States of America, joined Dec 2014, 432 posts, RR: 0
Posted (15 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 2204 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?



7 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

It all revolves around the number of tennis courts and whether or not there is a McDonald's on both decks or just one....

Just a joke, but seriously, I wondered along those lines as well. Interior layouts would help....

Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineFBWless From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

As you can see from the cabin layouts, the -200 is 5-10 m longer than the -100. I think that the real no of max passengers for the -200 was at about 950 in a one-class cabin layout.


User currently offlineAvion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

The A3XX-200 is quite a bit longer than the -100. Maybe you just mixed up length and span.


User currently offlineAerokid From Belgium, joined Jun 2000, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2121 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)

I hope this is an anwer to your question.

User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2105 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.

User currently offline777x From United States of America, joined Dec 2014, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

Well, I got those specs, as I said from the Airbus website, and I double checked them to ensure I got them right.

AFAIK longer wingspan increases lift, so it would seem to follow that the higher weight versions (-100,-200) would need more wingspan than the -50. But anyway, why wouldn't they share a common wing?




and you can see for yourself

Thanks for all the answers so far

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7142 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2082 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A3XX Specs posted Fri Jan 7 2000 20:50:14 by Jetstream 61
BA Waits For A350 Specs And Delays Order posted Wed Mar 28 2007 10:06:15 by N1786b
A-350XWB Specs! posted Thu Dec 7 2006 15:12:06 by Bringiton
Specs For A319LR posted Sat Dec 2 2006 11:29:37 by QM001
GYY New Runway Specs posted Tue Oct 17 2006 22:34:06 by Fll2993
AC-777LR Introduction & Specs posted Wed Sep 27 2006 00:21:14 by FLYACYYZ
Help With Specs Of A Preserved Aircraft posted Mon Jul 3 2006 08:12:22 by CYEGsTankers
Funny Old A3XX Project (mid-'80s) posted Sat Feb 25 2006 02:33:27 by Aircellist
The Next A3XX...(?) posted Thu Nov 3 2005 21:20:02 by Bongo
Funny Goof In Airbus A320 Specs... posted Fri Jun 17 2005 19:48:39 by Ulfinator