View Full Version : A320 - no winglets
keendog
26th Aug 2003, 19:27
I flew on an A320 (G-BUSC) on Sunday without its little winglets - I've just never come across an A320 without them before.
Any particular reason?
Sagey
26th Aug 2003, 19:31
It is a 100 series which doesn't have any winglets. Not many were manufactured so they appear unusual compared to the common winglet variety.
Sagey
When BA acquired Caledonian back in the late 80's, they also inherited these early Airbus' as well.
BAe 146-100
26th Aug 2003, 19:51
Hi,
Air France also operate the A320-100 variant.
http://www.chris-homepage.de/I5MWNjMmJhYTE4MDc5NTE2ODBjNDNiOG-icon.jpg
BAe 146-100
Golf Charlie Charlie
26th Aug 2003, 21:33
There were 21 A320-100s built. British Airways have 5 (G-BUSB,C,D,E,F), with the remaining 5 ex-BCAL being -200s. As best I can tell on a quick check, Air France are the only other operator of -100s - some may be ex-Air Inter.
BAe 146-100
26th Aug 2003, 22:45
Hi,
Did the A320-100 have the same flight deck as the 200 series?
BAe 146-100
HZ123
27th Aug 2003, 01:22
Cannot be sure of that but I believe they are all rostered and used as A320 standard fleet with no noticeable diference. Also told that the winglets were an add on as first batch of a/c failed to reach there opperating spec and the winglets were applied therafter, though they may have been intended anyway. Supposedly BA were given a wedge of compensation of this and rumour was that this was one of the reasons that BA avoided purchase of Airbus for some time.
NigelOnDraft
28th Aug 2003, 18:23
<<Did the A320-100 have the same flight deck as the 200 series?
>>
Not "did" - "does"...
Only way of telling is the FMGS A/C Status page, and looking out of the window.
Has different (lower) weights - so a really good idea when BA send one to IST! The winglets (allegedly) are the cause of performance correction fwd of 25% MAC CG for the -200 only.
<<Air France also operate the A320-100 variant>>
Regrettably one less than they started with - a problem with some trees I think....
NoD
BAe 146-100
28th Aug 2003, 19:36
Hi,
NigelOnDraft, Regrettably one less than they started with - a problem with some trees I think....
In the first crash of a new 'Fly-By-Wire' aircraft, the Airbus A320-100 impacted trees while performing a fly-by at an airshow and burst into flames.
Read more about it at AirDisaster (http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml).
BAe 146-100
Cleared_to
29th Aug 2003, 03:10
Yes...I think he knows. ;) :p
TopBunk
29th Aug 2003, 14:28
The -100's are useless due to the certified weights. The difference between max Landing and Take Off is 5 tonnes, or about 2 hours range, ie about PRG-LHR. No chance of it going to IST with any reasonable pax load. They should be consigned to the scrap yard, or put on domestics, imho!
seacue
30th Aug 2003, 03:40
I was told by a FO for UAL that they estimate a 5% increase in fuel consumption for each missing winglet on an A320.
Could it be that bad?