747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9756 times:
I know the AE316/7, was a RJ project, that seat 95 and 115 passengers, which Airbus was working on with China and Singapore. I also know that the AE316/7, had a cross section around the size of an DC-9 type a/c. So I wonder, do any body here, have a photo of the AE316/7 designs, and if you do, please post it ? Thank you
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9628 times:
Quoting Bureaucromancer (Reply 3): Is there any more information about this program out there somewhere?
A post from an old thread.....
"User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11091 posts, RR: 69
Reply 7, posted Fri Dec 13 2002 05:47:16 your local time (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
Airbus Industrie Asia (AIA) was planning on developing the AE316 and AE317 under a joint venture with Aviation Industries of China (AVIC) and Singapore Technologies.
It would have resembled the A320 family similar in length to the A318. The AE316 would have seated 95 to 105 passengers, while the larger stretched AE317 would have seated 115 to 125 passengers. The key difference between these 2 aircraft and the A320 family however would have been a narrower fuselage. It would have a 5-abreast seat configuration in economy instead of 6-abreast as on the current A320 family. It was originally called the AE100.
This aircraft would have been a TRUE 717 competitor as it would have been much much lighter than the A318.
Unfortunately this aircraft never became a reality.
Bureaucromancer From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7821 times:
Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 5): could have been possible to further shorten the 6 abreast A318 and make it an A317?
Technically it wouldn't have been hard at all, but the economics of the A318 are bad enough.
Honestly I have to say that from the looks of it it's a real shame that Airbus went with the A318 over the AE316/7, although I suppose the logic of the decision is clear enough. Honestly it still seems like a good concept post NEO introduction but for the glut of aircraft in that size range now... I assume that if Airbus had gone with this they could quite easily have beaten things like the C-Series and MRJ into service (how would it compare time wise the E-190/195?), and the commonality could have gone a long way in terms of early sales. The experience lightening the A320 technology wouldn't have hurt the NEO program either for that matter, with the potential for the new technology to eventually end up back in the A320s.
amccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7644 times:
Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 5): could have been possible to further shorten the 6 abreast A318 and make it an A317?
Possibly, but because the reduced moment arm between the wing and tail I imagine the tail would need to be scaled up. I believe Airbus has been able to utilize the same tail for the A318 as the rest of the A32X series, however anything much shorted than the A318 I would imagine would require a scaled up tail. Similarly, when Boeing produced the 747SP the vertical tail was increased in area because the reduced moment arm.
Long story short, possible yes, but as Bureaucromancer said, the economics would have been terrible.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7548 times:
Well those pics are of the experimental Airbus DC3-A313 (first pic) and the A314.
The DC3-A313 was considered too retro looking but it was thought it might make a great jump plane.
The A314 was an experiment into providing maximum safety for passengers which is why it had 8 exits (four main and four over wing). Even with this much passenger safety designed into it, it never caught on.
Also range was a bit of an issue for both these birds.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6621 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7316 times:
Quoting amccann (Reply 7): I believe Airbus has been able to utilize the same tail for the A318 as the rest of the A32X series, however anything much shorted than the A318 I would imagine would require a scaled up tail.
My understanding is that the tail of, for example, the A319, is 11.80 meters high while that of the 318 is 12.56 meters. The difference can be seen here:
egnr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 503 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7312 times:
Quoting amccann (Reply 7): I believe Airbus has been able to utilize the same tail for the A318 as the rest of the A32X series
The A319,320,321 share the same vertical tail, but the A318 features a taller fin. You can see the extension above the rudder on the LAN A318 below left compared with the A319 on the right.
Devilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6911 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 10): on the first photo the wing is too much to the front.
Rumor had it that it was returned to the manufacturer due to a bad nose-up attitude, which also made the carrier wary of taking delivery of its sibling.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6752 times:
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 13): Ahh, they also had a very early prototype of an A300 variant, but wind tunnel testing had disastrous results.....
Though I would LOVE to see it's take off performance! Pretty much vertical I would presume.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
amccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6482 times:
Quoting egnr (Reply 12): The A319,320,321 share the same vertical tail, but the A318 features a taller fin. You can see the extension above the rudder on the LAN A318 below left compared with the A319 on the right.
I didn't know that, thanks for pointing that out to me. I wonder if a further reduced moment arm would require an increased horizontal tail as well, or if the current tail has enough remaining control authority that it would not pose an issue.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 163 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, 
From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2006 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6358 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}