Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CanesFan
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:34 pm

Dash 8-100 to Dash 8-400
DC-8 series 10 to DC-8 series 60
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3538
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:30 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
reltney wrote:
NOT. 310 to 340-600 is the same fuselage. Even Airbus stresses that.

So the 310 to 340-600 is a correct notion. Same class? They differ by 2 or 4 engines so in that aspect, they are different. However, same fuselage...same...

Facts are fun...


No, that's not correct. They got an entirely different wing design. The A330 / A340 got a much wider wingspan than the A300 / A310. Also the cockpit design is very different. Therefor the A300 / A310 is always considered a different family from the A330 / A340.


The A340 doesn't even have the same wing throughout. The A342/3 has a different wing than the A345/6.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:09 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
The A340 doesn't even have the same wing throughout. The A342/3 has a different wing than the A345/6.


All Airbus WB before the A380/A350 have the same optimax fuselage crosssection.

A300, A310 (seem to) have the same wingbox ( and rather small, the belly fairing follows the fuselage form.
Optimizing changes to the rear fuselage form introduced with the (shorter fuselage, fully critical wing ) A310
were backported to the A300-600 and taken up on the A330/A340 ( full range ).

A330-2/300, A340-2/300 are the same plane in all major parts and nearly all smaller items.
difference 2 vs 4 engines. extra center MLG. Horizontal stab size adapted to fit each models.
wing structure to fit 4 engines exists on all produced wings ( removed for the A330NEO )

A340NG has an enlarged (longer) wingbox and wing (depth, span) vs. the basic A330/A340.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:01 am

conaly wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
No, that's not correct. They got an entirely different wing design. The A330 / A340 got a much wider wingspan than the A300 / A310. Also the cockpit design is very different. Therefor the A300 / A310 is always considered a different family from the A330 / A340.


A340-300 and A340-600 have different wings. The 747-200, 747-400 and 747-8 also have different wings (and the -200 even a different cockpit), the 747SP has a different tail and different flaps. The 737-100 and 737NG have also different cockpits and different wing designs, the MAX adds a different tail design, the 707, 727 and 757 use actually only the fuselage, while nearly everything else is different. That means you can attach different wings, different tails, different cockpits, noses, gears and whatever. Still all of them use the same basic design for the fuselage. So yes, A310 to A340 is correct.

No again.

The only major commonality is with composite vertical tail fins in some cases, and the fuselage diameter.

If we take interoperability as the important factor then it's a big no, pilot groups from A300/310 and the A330-340 can't mix. They are entirely different aircraft in the front office. A300 family uses a more analog cockpit and a yoke design, whereas the A330/340 is sidestick and screens. The A300/310 is also conventional whereas A330/340 is fly-by-wire.

There's just too much difference and entirely different crew ratings to consider them as the same family.
 
Caryjack
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:45 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:17 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
As mentioned, several of the Dougies and Maddogs, in addition to 735 and 736 as well as the A310, A318, A319, A342, and A345.

The A342 and A343 were launched simultaneously. They were more of a family than a stretch/shortening.

I'm aware, but I'd still call it a shrink for two reasons:
1) the A343 was to be the baseline moving forward, and the proposed A340-400, had it made it to market, would've been built off of that.

Do you consider the A-380 a shrink?
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:45 am

Channex757 wrote:
There's just too much difference and entirely different crew ratings to consider them as the same family.


The sensible thing to do in this debate is to stick to type certificates. If the authorities consider it "the same" then we should take that as our basis...

That makes the fokker F28-F70-F100 list valid, but the A300-A340 list not.

(And I would also agree with that - the A300 fuselage diameter is the same as the A340-600 but that's really about it.)
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
Cactus105
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:16 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:55 pm

It would be interesting to see the percentages if we included only the useful space gained. For example, Although the A321 is 41% longer than the A318 OVERALL, the A321 can hold almost 60% more people. I guess what Im getting at it, in terms of percentage, how many more fuselage sections/frames/etc. (whats the term??) were added/subtracted to the A320 Frame?
Wherever you go, there you are.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:34 pm

What was the stretch difference between the Comet 1 and the Comet 4?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:52 pm

Cactus105 wrote:
It would be interesting to see the percentages if we included only the useful space gained. For example, Although the A321 is 41% longer than the A318 OVERALL, the A321 can hold almost 60% more people.


But the A318 was also from before the time when airlines and manufacturers started reducing the number and size of lavatories, smaller galleys, reconfigured emergency exits etc. to stuff more seats in. It would be interesting to see what a hypothetical 2017 A318/A318NEO would look like in terms of seating. How many could they stuff in if they were to relaunch it today for some ultra-LCC?
 
hawk2100n
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:25 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:24 pm

I think Families of aircraft is completely valid to make this point.

731 - 28.65m
737MAX10 - 43.8m - 52.8% longer - nearly same seating and range as 707-320A
707-320 - 46.6m - 62.6% longer
753 - 54.40m - 89.8% longer - All developed from 367-80 prototype and have common fuselage sections.

A310 - 46.66m
A346 - 75.36m - 61.5% longer. Both developed from A300

CL600 - 20.85m
CRJ1000 - 39.1m - 87.5% stretch. And to those who say this isn't a fair comparison, same cockpit section and fuselage, so yeah it's a good comparison
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:41 pm

VSMUT wrote:
c933103 wrote:
A310 to A346 is like 60%?


It's a 61.5% increase.

Using the same method, the 737-100 to 757-300 is a 90% increase. But thats a bit of a stretch :stretch: :duck:


Ish, my understanding is the 707, 727, 737 and 757 share the same upper fuselage (cabin area), but the lower fuselage sections (bag pits) are slightly different.

Basically the story goes is the 707 was the base, the 727 was slightly smaller pits because Boeing figured short range flights would generally have less bags and cargo. Fun side note the 727 fuselage cross section below the floor level is actually different forward and behind the wing. Then when the 737 came along Boeing initially planned a smaller fuselage (initial design studies marketed the 737 as a 50-80 seat regional jet), but Boeing took and widened the cabin floor to the same width as the 707 and 727 so airlines could mix and match seats, galleys, lavs and other cabin fittings with their existing fleets, and offer customers a spacious "wide-body look" interior (name comes straight from the current 737-100/200 illustrated parts catalog).
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
User avatar
tjcab
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:14 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:21 pm

c933103 wrote:
A310 to A346 is like 60%?

It's a 61.5% increase.


Using the same method, the 737-100 to 757-300 is a 90% increase. But thats a bit of a stretch



Though similar cabin cross-section width, the fuselage is different. I always thought the 737 more like 707/727 double bubble as opposed to the circular 757 is?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:41 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
What was the stretch difference between the Comet 1 and the Comet 4?


93' to 111' ~ +20%
not all that much as things go.
(MTOW rose by ~40%, range doubled.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:19 pm

IMHO one shouldn't include/compare the airliners that are designated differently...e;g; A318/A319/A321. They may be the same family (A320) but Airbus named them differently because that's just what they are: different! Same with Fokker 70, etc. I know it is semantics speaking about the Airbus / Fokker but Boeing was smart enough to keep the type the same and have sub-type designations. Just my 2Cents.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
User avatar
conaly
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:50 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:26 pm

aeromoe wrote:
IMHO one shouldn't include/compare the airliners that are designated differently...e;g; A318/A319/A321. They may be the same family (A320) but Airbus named them differently because that's just what they are: different!


An A340-300 has probably less in common with an A340-500 than an A319 with an A320.
Airports 2019: ADB, ALG, AMD, ATL, BOG, BOS, CDG, CTS, DEL, DTW, DUS, EWR, FRA, FUK, HAM, HFT, HIJ, HND, HVG, IST, ITM, JFK, MUC, NGO, NUE, OKA, PHL, SIN, STN, TOS, YYZ, ZRH
Airports 2020: ALG, CTS, FRA, HKG, HND, MSQ, MUC, NUE, TLV, ZRH
 
AAMDanny
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:06 pm

Nobody worked out the diff betwen a B752 and a B753 yet? Or have we had enough of B757 posts :P
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:08 pm

aeromoe wrote:
IMHO one shouldn't include/compare the airliners that are designated differently...e;g; A318/A319/A321. They may be the same family (A320) but Airbus named them differently because that's just what they are: different! Same with Fokker 70, etc. I know it is semantics speaking about the Airbus / Fokker but Boeing was smart enough to keep the type the same and have sub-type designations. Just my 2Cents.


I disagree considering the Airbus narrowbodies share > 95% commonality. The only difference between Boeing 737 and Airbus A320x is the numbering scheme. A 319CEO has vastly more in common with a 321NEO than a 737-10 has in common with a 737-200.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13234
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:35 pm

Caryjack wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
The A342 and A343 were launched simultaneously. They were more of a family than a stretch/shortening.

I'm aware, but I'd still call it a shrink for two reasons:
1) the A343 was to be the baseline moving forward, and the proposed A340-400, had it made it to market, would've been built off of that.

Do you consider the A-380 a shrink?

Good question, never really thought about it.

I guess on the face of it, I'd say no... as the -800 would've been the platform that future variants were built from.
But then again, the wing seems so optimized for a stretch that it does make you wonder.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
klm617
Posts: 4902
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:09 am

How about the DC-8-11 to the DC-8-63
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:33 am

klm617 wrote:
How about the DC-8-11 to the DC-8-63


150.7 187.4 157.5 187.4

36.7' ~= 20% :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:29 pm

WIederling wrote:
klm617 wrote:
How about the DC-8-11 to the DC-8-63


150.7 187.4 157.5 187.4

36.7' ~= 20% :-)



I did the math before (see page 1) and I get 24%. 24.35 exactly.
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
User avatar
WassbiKhalifa
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:47 pm

L1011-500 was indeed a shrink. I used to load them on the ramp back in the day. The tail section was shorter and you had less room to work with when hooking up your container loader. You had very little margin for error..
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:10 pm

ro1960 wrote:
I did the math before (see page 1) and I get 24%. 24.35 exactly.


Depends on which length you take as reference length. :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:19 pm

WIederling wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
I did the math before (see page 1) and I get 24%. 24.35 exactly.


Depends on which length you take as reference length. :-)


From shortest (-10) to longest (-61/63) in this case. I believe the naming corresponds to the chronology. Wasn't the -10 was the base model?
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4157
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:34 pm

How about piston aircrafts?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:30 pm

: An A340-300 has probably less in common with an A340-500 than an A319 with an A320.

But still the same family: the Airbus 4-engined, single deck widebody being marketed at the time. Looks like a duck...walks like a duck...it's a duck, or A340 in this case. As for the A340-300 / 500 differences the same could be said about the 747SP vs. 747-8. Wings, fuselage, tailplane(s) all quite different, yet they all came from the basic 747 model.

Why'd they go with different naming conventions for the narrowbody family product? Who knows....probably just for marketing.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:32 pm

RalXWB wrote:
The fuselage of the 707/720/727/737/757 is also the same...so? We should stay within one type...


No they are not.

707 is the baseline fuselage
727 has a reduced forward belly and the standard 707 aft belly
737 has the reduced belly all the way
757 has the reduced fwd belly and the thicker 707 belly aft, which you can easily see on this type.
TU3/5,T20,IL8/6/W/9,I14,YK4/2,AN2/4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80/2/7,
AB4/6,318-321,313,332/3,342/3/5/6,712,703,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,741/L/2/3/4,752/3,763,
77E/W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,142/3,AR8/1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH,EM4,E75/90/95,AT7,DHT/3/4,CRJ/7/9
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:25 pm

aeromoe wrote:
Looks like a duck...walks like a duck...it's a duck, or A340 in this case.


Ducks galore!

you don't know your specimen ... properly.

A340 and A340NG don't even share a common center wing box.
All 747 models have the same dimension center wing box.

777X keeps the original 777 center wing box ( if only for retaining the certification ).
Murphy is an optimist
 
Bhoy
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:36 pm

aeromoe wrote:
Why'd they go with different naming conventions for the narrowbody family product? Who knows....probably just for marketing.

The A320 family followed on from Airbus' two previous products, the A300 [originally conceived as a 300 seater] and A310.
The A320 entered service in 1988, but Airbus were already developing the A330 [first flight 1992] and A340 [first flight 1991] by the time the stretched A321 came out [first flight 1993]. therefore, rather than calling the A321 an A350 (as the next highest number would be), to keep it in the family, they went with it being one bigger than the A320. Similarly, when the shortened versions A319 [first flight 1995] and A318 [first flight 2002] came along, they went with them being 1 smaller than the A320.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3538
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:42 am

For the A300 and A320 family, I would not count the A310, A319 or A318. Similarly for the A330/A340, I would not count the A332. Only stretches of the current frame count.

Thus, for Airbus:

A300 - no stretch
A320 - one stretch (A321)
A330 - no stretch
A340 - three stretches (A342 and A343 developed simultaneously, then A346 --- the A345 is a shrink of the A346).
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:20 pm

The A320 family followed on from Airbus' two previous products, the A300 [originally conceived as a 300 seater] and A310.
The A320 entered service in 1988, but Airbus were already developing the A330 [first flight 1992] and A340 [first flight 1991] by the time the stretched A321 came out [first flight 1993]. therefore, rather than calling the A321 an A350 (as the next highest number would be), to keep it in the family, they went with it being one bigger than the A320. Similarly, when the shortened versions A319 [first flight 1995] and A318 [first flight 2002] came along, they went with them being 1 smaller than the A320.


Thanks...I'm pretty familiar with these airframes and others as I've been spotting and photographing since the late 1970s as a teenager...that puts me in my early 50s now...so I'm no newbie to this. My point is, why did Airbus NOT use suffixes for the different fuselage lengths of the A320 family like they did the A330 and A340.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Longest fuselage (proportional) length difference?

Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:59 pm

CanadianNorth wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
c933103 wrote:
A310 to A346 is like 60%?


It's a 61.5% increase.

Using the same method, the 737-100 to 757-300 is a 90% increase. But thats a bit of a stretch :stretch: :duck:


Ish, my understanding is the 707, 727, 737 and 757 share the same upper fuselage (cabin area), but the lower fuselage sections (bag pits) are slightly different.


True, but thats what I meant with "a bit of a stretch" ;) :)

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos