Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Lewton
Topic Author
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:46 pm

Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:11 pm

Does anyone know why the A320 family models use names like A319, A320 etc, while for the rest of the families it is always the same model number and then it is differentiated with -200, -300 etc?

To explain it more, we all know:
A318
A319ceo/neo
A320ceo/neo
A321ceo/neo


But then in A330 we have:
A330-200
A330-300
A330-800
A330-900

To be consistent with A320 naming conventions, they should be called:
A330-200 => A330 or A330ceo
A330-300 => A331 or A331ceo
A330-800 => A330neo
A330-900 => A331neo


Then on to A350, instead of:
A350-800 (if it is ever produced)
A350-900
A350-1000

We should have:
A350-800 => A349 (if it is ever produced)
A350-900 => A350
A350-1000=> A351
From Hamburg with love.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:17 pm

and some confusion between 313 and 318.

also, for blondies, 319 "is an older version of 320"
 
User avatar
SASViking
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:06 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:34 pm

Technically the A320-family also have the -xxx names.
A318-100
A319-100
A320-100
A320-200
A320-200 Sharklets
A320-200N
A321-100
A321-200
A321-200 Sharklets
A321-200N
A321-200NX
Types flown: A319, A320, A32N, A321, A332, A333, A343, AT43, AT75, AT76, B717, B732, B735, B736, B737, B738, B752, B753, CRJ9, DC10, DH4D, DHC3, E135, E145, E175, E190, E195, F100, MD11, MD81, MD82, MD87, RJ1H
 
federerv2
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:39 pm

The way I would think of it for Airbus commercial aircraft is:

Narrowbodies follow convention where the third digit (32X) indicates a different variant, while in widebodies the 4th-6th digits "A350-XXX" indicate different variants.

The only aircraft that is an exception to this rule is the c series / A220, which we all know started out as a Bombardier. The A220 follows the widebody naming convention. Curious to hear what others have to say on this though!
Last edited by federerv2 on Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:50 pm

The A300/310 and A320 naming happened in Airbus' early days - no protocol was officially established.

However, the A330/340 started the modern day naming convention that is also applied to the A220.
 
User avatar
leleko747
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:16 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:06 pm

In my opinion, the logical thing should be:

the A318, A319 and A321 should actually be variants of the A320 type.

Something like A320-300, A320-400, A320-500. Basically the same thing Boeing does.

However, this wouldn't work too well, since the A320 have two versions, the 100 and 200. Same for the A321.
I wonder when people will understand:
Embraer 190 or simply E190, not ERJ-190. E-Jets are NOT ERJs!
Boeing 747-8, not Boeing 747-800. Same goes for 787.
Airbus A320, not Airbus 320.
Airbii does not exist.
 
hitower3
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:12 pm

Hello,

For a bit of historical context: the Airbus project initially settled on the "A300" designation, where the number "300" represented the intended passenger capacity. Likewise, the shortened version of the A300 was to be called "A250". For reasons unknown to me, this shortened variant would finally be called "A310". This way to proceed also set the rules for the A320, A330, A340, A350 in chronological order.
And the A380? Well, it was designated this way to please the Chinese, since "8" is considered a lucky number. This also motivated the version designator to be "-800" instead of a more conventional "-200" or "-300". (Sidenote: Chinese operators have a total of 5 units in their fleet - bad luck.)

About version designators: The rule is that there is no rule. Airbus started with suffixes like "-B1", "-B4", the latter one gaining a "post-suffix" to eventually become the A300B4-600R.
The A310 then got suffixes "inspired by Boeing": "-100" (not built), "-200" and "-300".
The A320 upgraded early from "-100" to "-200" thanks to added wingtip fences and a MTOW bump. They later made much deeper mods without changing the "-200" suffix. Anyone understands?
The A318 and A319 never got beyond their "-100" suffix, while the A321 would get the "-200" with a 6t MTOW bump.
On A330, A340 and A350 the suffixes are used to designate different fuselage lengths (which includes quite heavy structural mods on the latter two).

As you can see, it's quite complicated and not logical.

Best regards,
Hendric
 
Pendennis
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:36 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:25 pm

I have explained here before, it was because of Government launch aid: after this is paid back, the Governments take a levy on every aircraft sold. For example the UK Government gets a levy on every A320 series aircraft produced; other Governments were not so precise in their agreements, so only get a levy on an A320 sale, not an A318/319/321.

Needless to say the relevant Governments learned their lesson very quickly so going forward there was no incentive for Airbus not to use the more straightforward designation system.
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:28 pm

The A320-100 had a dry centre wing box, all -200 variants had/have a wet centre section integral fuel tank). However, no such distinction was applied to the fixed RCT (rear centre tank) on the two A340-500 versions built, possibly because all -500s had an RCT. Bearing this in mind, the A321-200XLR appears to have its own naming logic.

There was a specific reason for not using An A320-X00 suffix to describe the A319 and subsequent Single Aisle Family members.
 
User avatar
ACCS300
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:05 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:03 pm

I like the fact that the A320 family has 'stand-alone' names. The A321 is a category leader and deserves it's own name, it has many variants within it's name, 100, 200, XL, XLR etc., I feel for the marketing, the 321 stands on it's own and is far more recognizable than say the 737-900-ER. Now that the A318 is dead and the A319 is barely selling in the NEO category, the 320 and the 321 seem like very different products.
 
steman
Posts: 1642
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:19 pm

If I´m not wrong the A310 gets its name from A300 minus 10 , the amount of frames removed from the fuselage to make it shorter. And it became A310, kinda setting the path for future models, so the next model (not version) was naturally the A320, followed by A330 and A340. The A300 and 310 got several versions (-200/300/600) without changing the main denominator. The A320 also got variant designation in the form of -100 and -200 but when it was time to develop the next major variant (a stretched partially rewinged model), A330 was already assigned to another project and so they opted for A321. A319 and A318 followed this philosophy. A340 had been assigned together with A330 when the common project started. A380 is out of sequence not only to please the Chinese customers with the lucky number 8 but also to highlight the much bigger size and because the number 8 resembles the cross section of the A380´s fuselage, like two normal fuselage on top of each other (this is just my opinion). A350 followed into the original pattern after A340. No mention of A360 or A370. Maybe for future use.
 
9Patch
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:31 pm

hitower3 wrote:
And the A380? Well, it was designated this way to please the Chinese, since "8" is considered a lucky number. This also motivated the version designator to be "-800" instead of a more conventional "-200" or "-300". (Sidenote: Chinese operators have a total of 5 units in their fleet - bad luck.)


I also read somewhere that another reason Airbus decided to jump ahead in their numbering sequence for the A380 is the number "8" looks like a double decker.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6252
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:40 pm

Since when is marketing logical? Then take a look at German car naming mess.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2353
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:50 pm

Yeah, a lot of this was a big mess. One thing to add: on the 330/340, the quad was to launch first, and hence be the 330, but sales told marketing that the quad should be "340," which is why those model numbers were out of sequence. They also skipped the -100, because so many -100 series aircraft had been short-run or DOA (737, A310, 757, 767) that they thought it would sound primitive.

The neo numbering gets me as well with the 5 and 7 engine identifiers, they should have just kept the 1 and the 2 for CFM and PW, respectively.

That B and A both started doing the 8/9/10 numbering annoys me. With the exception of the 788, the "8" designators have been flops. Meanwhile, the 747-400, with two deadly 4s in it, sold like hotcakes, proof that superstition doesn't matter to airline planners.
 
steman
Posts: 1642
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:33 pm

LH707330 wrote:
The neo numbering gets me as well with the 5 and 7 engine identifiers, they should have just kept the 1 and the 2 for CFM and PW, respectively.


What bothers me is that Airbus decided to keep -200 variant number for the NEOs instead of going with a different number, like -300 or -600.
An A320NEO is officially an A320-271N (if PW powered) but it would have deserved a new variant denomination like A320-371N or -671N. Even more so for the A321 which already has 3 subvariant of the NEO but they are all -200s.
 
majano
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:47 pm

steman wrote:
If I´m not wrong the A310 gets its name from A300 minus 10 , the amount of frames removed from the fuselage to make it shorter. And it became A310, kinda setting the path for future models, so the next model (not version) was naturally the A320, followed by A330 and A340. The A300 and 310 got several versions (-200/300/600) without changing the main denominator. The A320 also got variant designation in the form of -100 and -200 but when it was time to develop the next major variant (a stretched partially rewinged model), A330 was already assigned to another project and so they opted for A321. A319 and A318 followed this philosophy. A340 had been assigned together with A330 when the common project started. A380 is out of sequence not only to please the Chinese customers with the lucky number 8 but also to highlight the much bigger size and because the number 8 resembles the cross section of the A380´s fuselage, like two normal fuselage on top of each other (this is just my opinion). A350 followed into the original pattern after A340. No mention of A360 or A370. Maybe for future use.

I think of all the speculation here, this is by far the best. No non-sensical insinuations, just balanced, fair attemmpt.
 
User avatar
TedToToe
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:43 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:13 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Since when is marketing logical? Then take a look at German car naming mess.

Off topic, but care to elaborate?
 
sketch
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:28 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:27 pm

TedToToe wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Since when is marketing logical? Then take a look at German car naming mess.

Off topic, but care to elaborate?

German luxury car names (and by extension some Japanese luxury car names that have purposefully used similar naming schemes) have followed various alphanumeric systems for decades, sometimes idiosyncratically. There's been a lot of consternation about this in recent years (the last 10 years or so).

Model names for most BMWs since the 1980s and for most Mercedes-Benz models since the 1990s have followed alphanumeric systems that included the series or class of the model and a representation of the engine displacement in liters.

BMW's system had a 3-digit number where the first number was the series (model) and the 2nd and 3rd number indicated the engine displacement in liters x 10. So, a 3-series with a 2.8 liter engine was a "328i", a 7-series with a 4.0 liter engine was a "740i". Mercedes-Benz's system had a letter indicating the class (model) followed by a 3-digit number which indicated the displacement in liters x 100. So an S class with a 5.0 liter engine was an "S 500", a C class with a 3.2 liter engine was a "C 320".

This was all well and good until the advent of turbocharged engines, which allow more power with less displacement. But for marketing reasons, the manufacturers didn't want to give newer, more powerful cars smaller numbers. So, within the last decade, you see more and more "meaningless" designations. The 3-series has models like the 330i, 335i, and 340i, which all use variants of a 3.0 liter engine with varying degrees of turbocharging. The Mercedes S 550 has a 4.4 liter twin turbo V8.

In short, the numbers used to indicate real, physical characteristics of the car's engine and now they don't anymore, and enthusiasts are mad about it.

I suppose the comparison is that the numbers in aircraft names similarly don't really relate to any characteristic of the airplane itself ("A340" notwithstanding).
 
A350OZ
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:20 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:16 am

sketch wrote:
TedToToe wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Since when is marketing logical? Then take a look at German car naming mess.

Off topic, but care to elaborate?

German luxury car names (and by extension some Japanese luxury car names that have purposefully used similar naming schemes) have followed various alphanumeric systems for decades, sometimes idiosyncratically. There's been a lot of consternation about this in recent years (the last 10 years or so).

Model names for most BMWs since the 1980s and for most Mercedes-Benz models since the 1990s have followed alphanumeric systems that included the series or class of the model and a representation of the engine displacement in liters.

BMW's system had a 3-digit number where the first number was the series (model) and the 2nd and 3rd number indicated the engine displacement in liters x 10. So, a 3-series with a 2.8 liter engine was a "328i", a 7-series with a 4.0 liter engine was a "740i". Mercedes-Benz's system had a letter indicating the class (model) followed by a 3-digit number which indicated the displacement in liters x 100. So an S class with a 5.0 liter engine was an "S 500", a C class with a 3.2 liter engine was a "C 320".

This was all well and good until the advent of turbocharged engines, which allow more power with less displacement. But for marketing reasons, the manufacturers didn't want to give newer, more powerful cars smaller numbers. So, within the last decade, you see more and more "meaningless" designations. The 3-series has models like the 330i, 335i, and 340i, which all use variants of a 3.0 liter engine with varying degrees of turbocharging. The Mercedes S 550 has a 4.4 liter twin turbo V8.

In short, the numbers used to indicate real, physical characteristics of the car's engine and now they don't anymore, and enthusiasts are mad about it.

I suppose the comparison is that the numbers in aircraft names similarly don't really relate to any characteristic of the airplane itself ("A340" notwithstanding).


Sorry, still OT but: this! Even worse now that Audi has introduced a new naming convention of 30 TFSI or 50 TFSI, where the number doesn't correlate to anything. Completely confusing.

Anyway, rant over. Back to Airbus:

While confusing, I do not think it really matters. They are not marketing planes to the general public (well, to some degree they do, but most people do not know or care what plane they are on), but to airlines with professionals working in fleet planning departments, who would not care if a small A320Series is called a A319 or A320-300.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:34 am

steman wrote:
If I´m not wrong the A310 gets its name from A300 minus 10 , the amount of frames removed from the fuselage to make it shorter. And it became A310


I have never heard this before.

The A300B series started as the A300B1, then the A300B2 then A300B4, etc. What eventually became the A310 started as the A300B10, then the name was shortened to A310.

Why 10? Your explanation sounds as plausable as any. ;)
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:02 am

LH707330 wrote:
Meanwhile, the 747-400, with two deadly 4s in it, sold like hotcakes, proof that superstition doesn't matter to airline planners.

Doesn't two 4's add up to 8? :)

steman wrote:
What bothers me is that Airbus decided to keep -200 variant number for the NEOs instead of going with a different number, like -300 or -600.
An A320NEO is officially an A320-271N (if PW powered) but it would have deserved a new variant denomination like A320-371N or -671N. Even more so for the A321 which already has 3 subvariant of the NEO but they are all -200s.

I think that Airbus are correct on this - the Neo airframe is no different from the latest CEOs. So the type number just reflects the different engines fitted to the frame.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:39 am

hitower3 wrote:
Hello,

For a bit of historical context: the Airbus project initially settled on the "A300" designation, where the number "300" represented the intended passenger capacity. Likewise, the shortened version of the A300 was to be called "A250". For reasons unknown to me, this shortened variant would finally be called "A310".
Hendric


Airbus had a line of tentative model progressions defined
named A300-Bn with n going from 1 to 11
A300-B10 was the shortened fuselage longer ranged version of the base model.
The final product then got a brand new wing -> A310
the -B9 concept was developed via TA9 TA11 intermediate ideas to the A340/A330 combo.
see https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 201706.PDF
and a range of other internet sources.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3400
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:10 pm

longhauler wrote:
steman wrote:
If I´m not wrong the A310 gets its name from A300 minus 10 , the amount of frames removed from the fuselage to make it shorter. And it became A310


I have never heard this before.

The A300B series started as the A300B1, then the A300B2 then A300B4, etc. What eventually became the A310 started as the A300B10, then the name was shortened to A310.

Why 10? Your explanation sounds as plausable as any. ;)


It was design study 10... There were various design studies that were numbered on to the A300Bx that date back to before the first flight of the B1 even:

A300B1, B2, B4= built

B3 redesignated B2K, built (not sure on that one but it's been written about that way)

A300B9 long range twin evolved into the A330
A300B10 shortened medium haul evolved into the A310
A300B11 quad evolved into the A340

* the B9 and B11 get swapped all the time in articles, I don't know for sure the above is in fact correct but it's the more consistent of the 2

There were others that didn't go anywhere, the ones I know of:

A300B5 stretch, no idea how far this one went but obviously never built
A300B6 partially became the A300-600 (higher weight version, evolved wing)
A300B7 for BEA with RR RB.211s, a bit shorter than B2, never built, design didn't evolve much beyond a few drawings, and no it's not the HBN100 or early A300 with RB207 design either.
A300B8 for the US domestic market, in between A300B2 and A310 with B2K wing, never built
A300BB10 aborted Airbus/Boeing co-project that would of been done in place of A310 and 767. More government meddling than actual work from what I understand.
A300B12 tri-jet, I've only ever seen 3rd hand info on this one so might not be real... no drawings or images.

The A320 family came from design studies called SAx (SA1, SA2, SA3) SA= single aisle.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
TedToToe
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:43 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:32 pm

sketch wrote:
TedToToe wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Since when is marketing logical? Then take a look at German car naming mess.

Off topic, but care to elaborate?

German luxury car names (and by extension some Japanese luxury car names that have purposefully used similar naming schemes) have followed various alphanumeric systems for decades, sometimes idiosyncratically. There's been a lot of consternation about this in recent years (the last 10 years or so).

Model names for most BMWs since the 1980s and for most Mercedes-Benz models since the 1990s have followed alphanumeric systems that included the series or class of the model and a representation of the engine displacement in liters.

BMW's system had a 3-digit number where the first number was the series (model) and the 2nd and 3rd number indicated the engine displacement in liters x 10. So, a 3-series with a 2.8 liter engine was a "328i", a 7-series with a 4.0 liter engine was a "740i". Mercedes-Benz's system had a letter indicating the class (model) followed by a 3-digit number which indicated the displacement in liters x 100. So an S class with a 5.0 liter engine was an "S 500", a C class with a 3.2 liter engine was a "C 320".

This was all well and good until the advent of turbocharged engines, which allow more power with less displacement. But for marketing reasons, the manufacturers didn't want to give newer, more powerful cars smaller numbers. So, within the last decade, you see more and more "meaningless" designations. The 3-series has models like the 330i, 335i, and 340i, which all use variants of a 3.0 liter engine with varying degrees of turbocharging. The Mercedes S 550 has a 4.4 liter twin turbo V8.

In short, the numbers used to indicate real, physical characteristics of the car's engine and now they don't anymore, and enthusiasts are mad about it.

sketch, thank you for the explanation. I can see how that would annoy the purists, and include myself in that camp!
 
Lewton
Topic Author
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:46 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:00 am

The thread got some very interesting answers, but this is the most interesting of all.
Pendennis wrote:
I have explained here before, it was because of Government launch aid: after this is paid back, the Governments take a levy on every aircraft sold. For example the UK Government gets a levy on every A320 series aircraft produced; other Governments were not so precise in their agreements, so only get a levy on an A320 sale, not an A318/319/321.

Needless to say the relevant Governments learned their lesson very quickly so going forward there was no incentive for Airbus not to use the more straightforward designation system.

Is there any relevant source on-line about this or is it hearsay?
From Hamburg with love.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:32 am

No numbering system is perfect, especially with lots of variants. Even Boeing's convention went slightly awry with the 737 Classics, as whereas they conventionally have the bigger number variants being newer, heavier and/or longer (e.g. the 737-100, 200, 300, 400 are all increasing in size, as indeed are the NG 600, 700, 800 and 900 variants) when they then launched a shorter version of the 737 Classic to replace the 737-200, by giving it the next number 500, the smallest and newest version now had a higher number than the largest (the 400!)

I imagine that if Airbus had known that the A320 would be the success it was AND that they would both stretch AND shrink it, either they would have kept the 100, 200 etc numbers for stretches and shrinks rather than minor weight differences, or they would have given the original version a different number, say A325 so that all models would fit into the A32* category, as A318 and A319 sound more like derivatives of the A310. With the A318 and A319 variants fading now, at least this issue has gone away!
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
vaughanparry
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:46 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:48 am

sketch wrote:
TedToToe wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Since when is marketing logical? Then take a look at German car naming mess.

Off topic, but care to elaborate?

German luxury car names (and by extension some Japanese luxury car names that have purposefully used similar naming schemes) have followed various alphanumeric systems for decades, sometimes idiosyncratically. There's been a lot of consternation about this in recent years (the last 10 years or so).

Model names for most BMWs since the 1980s and for most Mercedes-Benz models since the 1990s have followed alphanumeric systems that included the series or class of the model and a representation of the engine displacement in liters.

BMW's system had a 3-digit number where the first number was the series (model) and the 2nd and 3rd number indicated the engine displacement in liters x 10. So, a 3-series with a 2.8 liter engine was a "328i", a 7-series with a 4.0 liter engine was a "740i". Mercedes-Benz's system had a letter indicating the class (model) followed by a 3-digit number which indicated the displacement in liters x 100. So an S class with a 5.0 liter engine was an "S 500", a C class with a 3.2 liter engine was a "C 320".

This was all well and good until the advent of turbocharged engines, which allow more power with less displacement. But for marketing reasons, the manufacturers didn't want to give newer, more powerful cars smaller numbers. So, within the last decade, you see more and more "meaningless" designations. The 3-series has models like the 330i, 335i, and 340i, which all use variants of a 3.0 liter engine with varying degrees of turbocharging. The Mercedes S 550 has a 4.4 liter twin turbo V8.

In short, the numbers used to indicate real, physical characteristics of the car's engine and now they don't anymore, and enthusiasts are mad about it.

I suppose the comparison is that the numbers in aircraft names similarly don't really relate to any characteristic of the airplane itself ("A340" notwithstanding).


My late father's BMW 316, bought in the mid-'80s, actually had a 1.8 litre engine. IIRC the early models had the 1.6 engine that the name implies but this was replaced with the 1.8. As I'm sure you know, Volkswagen name their cars after winds e.g. Golf, Passat, Jetta, Scirocco...

PS As off-topic topics go, this one is a belter! :D
 
sketch
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:28 pm

Re: Airbus airliners name conventions

Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:43 pm

vaughanparry wrote:
My late father's BMW 316, bought in the mid-'80s, actually had a 1.8 litre engine. IIRC the early models had the 1.6 engine that the name implies but this was replaced with the 1.8. As I'm sure you know, Volkswagen name their cars after winds e.g. Golf, Passat, Jetta, Scirocco...

PS As off-topic topics go, this one is a belter! :D

No kidding :lol: I did make sure to specify German "luxury" brands to exclude VW.

True there are some exceptions from days gone by, but they're relatively minor and were generally in the ballpark (e.g., the 323i had a 2.5 liter six (but was renamed 325i a couple years later anyway); today, they're inflated almost as a rule.

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