Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on August 08, 2005, 03:46:38 AM
-
Any of you guys know anything about this plane? I thought the Airbus (the 320 springs to mind) had only "just enough" power - much less than the B757 - but having been on an A319, it seemed to stand on its tail without much difficulty. I'd be interested to know some technical details such as speeds/climb rates, date of introduction etc.
_____________________
If it ain't Boeing, I'm going anyway. :p
-
I didn't read anything on the site, but maybe this Google result will have what you're looking for:
AirBus a319 (http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a320/a319/)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
had only "just enough" power
Pretty much all the passenger jets should have just enough power to stay in the air even if one of two engines cuts out.
Power wise A32S seems to be somewhere along with the B737NG.
As I recall B757 and MD80 has more extra juice in the engines than most..
-
The only Airbus with "just enough power" is the A340-200. Otherwise their power to weight ratio is comparable to any other airplanes.
-
Don't know about the fuel loads but MD80 I was in accelerated very nicely compared to Airbus or 757.
Most sluggish was Tupolev 134 but once again; no idea if it was loaded to max.
-
A319 is the short-range version of the A320 series. As such, it'll have the same engines, but smaller fuselage, lower max weight and so on. As an added bonus, it should have better short-field performance.
Translation: It should climb like a scalded cat.
-
Dinger,
They do have different engines in 319, 320 and 321.
For example Austrian uses the following models:
A319:
CFM 56-5B6/B - 23,500 lbs
4,500 km
A320:
CFM 56-5B4/2P - 27,000 lbs
4,300 km
A321:
CFM 56-5B1/2P - 32,000 lbs
-111: 2,360 km
-211: 3,500 km
Also B737-600/700/800/900 uses different engines, more powerful on the bigger models.
Actually might use almost the same engines as the airbus A32S's..
etc.
EDIT: Added the range with full payload
-
Define "just enough".
Just enough at Maximum Certificated Gross Weight?
Rest assured it has enough power to meet FAA and ICAO requirements and specifications in order to operate at the Certificated weights.
And I seriously doubt that any major commerical manufacturer significantly "overpowers" its aircraft. Thrust costs money to install and to create. Price is part of the package. So they equip the aircraft with engines that meet the specifications and needs without spending any more than they have to and while trying to maximize fuel economy.
-
Maximum takeoff weight for the A319 is 166,500 lbs.
Maximum takeoff weight for the A320 is 169,.800 lbs.
Maximum takeoff weight for the A321 is 206,100 lbs.
-
Acceleration and climb rates reflect many variables, including outside air temp, fuel load, cargo load, runway length, pax load, and noise abatement requirements.
No, the A319 doesnt have more power to weight than a 757 that I know of, since the 757 would very rarely use anything close to full power for a takeoff it would be hard to compare the aircraft.
But as pointed out, it has sufficient power to meet regs, which means it could continue a takeoff on one engine if an engine was lost at V1.
dago
-
Guess it is
Dago, they'll never use full power (or really even "close") at any stage of flight other than in emergency.
-
hehe, the A319 does NOT have just enough power to fly with 2 engines out fishu.
;)
-
Originally posted by loser
hehe, the A319 does NOT have just enough power to fly with 2 engines out fishu.
;)
"stay in the air even if one of two engines cuts out"
-
gotcha...my bad
-
Originally posted by Toad
Define "just enough".
Just enough at Maximum Certificated Gross Weight?
Rest assured it has enough power to meet FAA and ICAO requirements and specifications in order to operate at the Certificated weights.
And I seriously doubt that any major commerical manufacturer significantly "overpowers" its aircraft. Thrust costs money to install and to create. Price is part of the package. So they equip the aircraft with engines that meet the specifications and needs without spending any more than they have to and while trying to maximize fuel economy.
Sorry, Toad - I was being wafflesome - more than usual! ;)
No hard and fast data - I remember reading some sort of comparison between B757 and A320. The A320 climb rate was described as "leisurely" by comparison.
The airline on whose A319 I was a passenger was Meridiana - http://www.meridiana.it - on a flight from Gatwick to Florence - and back.
They use the A319-112 because Its performance and noiselessness makes it particularly apt for connecting airports with small runways, such as that in Florence, with national and European destinations.
which sort of suggests it has a good climb rate. The flight was 2 hours or less, so not too much fuel to carry.
-
I'm sure the A320 can operate from the same airports as the A319. The likely reason they've chosen the A319 over the A320 for example, is that it's capacity fits their route structure. A320 would have been a more economical choice if they could fill it.
The A318 is an interesting plane btw. It's way overweight when compared to it's capasity but it still sells because of fleet commonality, even if it's much less economical than other models of the A320 series.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
They use the A319-112 because which sort of suggests it has a good climb rate. The flight was 2 hours or less, so not too much fuel to carry.
They all climb about the same.
Even if you could climb more with less fuel, the plane could still climb less and instead use less power to preserve the engine and fuel.
The planes computer creates a vertical profile for the route and that can be affected by the cost index value.
Each airline uses their own cost index.
Generally lower cost index value more range and best fuel efficiency, while higher value increases the speed and fuel usage.
Pilots can also opt to use a derated takeoff and/or climb profile.