AoA = Angle of attack . Used purely for aerodynamics purposes, it is the angle between the reference airfoil chord - a "line" between the leading edge and the trailing edge - and the flight path vector . That said, AoA has an effect on the body angle of the aircraft - which pilots visualise on the artificial horizon as "attitude" - as the wing is already attached to the fuselage at a designed angle.
Therefore, you must understand that " attitude", " body angle ", " decK angle " which is about the only
erception the passengers would feel inside a cabin are the same thing. How fallacious the feeling can be demonstrated by saying that on most airplanes, the attitude during an intermediate approach (i.e before intercetion of the final path) is steeper than for normal climb, although the flight is level.
We talk more of " climb gradient " than AoA. For performance reasons, it is more useful as it is the ratio between ground speed and climb speed... The regulations are the same for all airliners regarding required performance. That means let's say a 737-800 should demonstrate the same climb capability as a 777-300ER, a 330-200 or a 318 . That sort of performance is demanded with an engine failure and is of course dependant on engine thrust and - very simplistically - wing loading, so it would seem that the bigger the engine - relatively to the size opf the airplane - the better the performance. Right, but the engine thrust must be somewhere restricted to the required performance, for reasons of economics - airlines do not want to pay for excessive thrust just to please A.netters. On this subject, for economical reasons, some airlines with a big fleet of a certain family would like engine communality and in this case you might well find the smallest of the family with an engine which is in theory too big but fits the maintenance bill. ( I refer in particular to the 320, 319, 321, 318 family )
|Quoting Il75 (Thread starter):|
Given the same conditions (weather, traffic, approach line, load/wheig factor) does an A320, MD8X or 737 normally descend/ land faster than a wide body?
No, the descent paths are the same for everybody, for ATC constraints. But if you're talking about landing speeds, as a ball park set of figures, a long range wide body would approach 10 to 15 kt faster than a 320.