RampRat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1455 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1426 times:
I just worked flight 166 PDX-JFK. The aircraft number was 598. This aircraft had some weird connectors in the ceiling in the aft pit. It had seven connectors total. It also had three raised sections the length of the floor. The only thing I could think of is. It was for a extra fuel tank. I have never seen this in any of the A320's I worked.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 80 Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1426 times:
Quoting RampRat74 (Thread starter): This aircraft had some weird connectors in the ceiling in the aft pit. It had seven connectors total. It also had three raised sections the length of the floor. The only thing I could think of is. It was for a extra fuel tank.
Your observation is spot on. B6 had Airbus install the ACT on their A320s as a way of extending their range. The problem was, the ACT added so much extra weight that it burned off as much fuel as it added, meaning no increase in range and higher fuel costs. They have been removed and Airbus compensated jetBlue.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Ramprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1455 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1299 times:
Thanks for the reply. I guess the three extra beams on the floor were for reinforcement. You cut the cargo area in half with a tank that size.
RDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1313 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1123 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 1):
Your observation is spot on. B6 had Airbus install the ACT on their A320s as a way of extending their range. The problem was, the ACT added so much extra weight that it burned off as much fuel as it added, meaning no increase in range and higher fuel costs. They have been removed and Airbus compensated jetBlue.
ACT= additional center tank? I have never heard of this in the A32x family...was this a prototype thing? How many aircraft was it tested on?
Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 80 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1115 times:
Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 3): ACT= additional center tank? I have never heard of this in the A32x family...was this a prototype thing? How many aircraft was it tested on?
Auxilary Center Tank I believe. It is not a new thing at all. It was actually designed for the A321-200 and has had success there. B6 were the first ones to try it on the A320-200 and it failed
Quoting Ramprat74 (Reply 2): Thanks for the reply. I guess the three extra beams on the floor were for reinforcement. You cut the cargo area in half with a tank that size.
It is also one of the likely major reasons that they have range issues at times. There is still weight added from the provisioning for those tanks
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1455 posts, 
From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1313 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
