A320 without winglets

[inglebyboro]

Flew from CDG - MAN on Thur 06th, with Air France on an A320 - it said so on the side of the aircraft, on the safety card, and was announced by the cabin crew. I thought all A320's had winglets, but this little baby did not.

Am I missing something?????

Cheers
IB

[Double Hydco]

I believe that AF still fly some of the very early 100 series A320's which don't have the winglets fitted.

Cheers, DH

[Coffin Corner]

Just to be a pedant, they are wing fences rather than winglets, there is a difference, but we know what you mean.

I'm sure I've seen other 320s flying without them too

[Seat62K]

I think BA might have some (acquired as a result of the BCal merger) though I could be wrong...

[Fargoo]

We used to have a few -100's at BA without the winglets but they've all gone now.

Coffin Corner is right, they're call Wingtip Fences officially but everyone still calls them winglets :ok:

[TheCosmicFrog]

There's a tiny number of A320s in the world without wingtip fences.

[mutt]

Its also a MEL item, so the aircraft could be flown without 1.

Mutt

[powerstall]

Maybe you're referring to the A320-100, only a few we're built.... shorter range and fuel capacity in contrast to the 200 series.. :ok:

[chevvron]

It's all to do with what engines are fitted. If it's the V2500 engine, then it's fitted with wingtip fences, if not then it's not!!

[TopBunk]

Unfortunately, we still have some of the first 200's that are nearly as old, and just as smelly... The days of the Blue Loo still live on in the skies above LHR!

I found that as BA got more and more of the A319's and newer -200's, which had single point toilet servicing a the rear of the aircraft, the toilet servicing team frequently forgot about the requirement to separately service the forward loo. This indeed, after a few flights could well lead to the blue Elsan-type fluid used becoming distinctly brown! All it ever took was to get the honey wagon back to service the forward loo and normal pleasant odours returned.

BA did indeed have 5 A320-100's (registrations G-BUSB to BUSF inclusive) without the wingtip fences/winglets. The remaining 5 A320's inherited from BCal are A320-200's (G-BUSG to G-BUSK).

[TopBunk]

Powerstall said:Maybe you're referring to the A320-100, only a few we're built.... shorter range and fuel capacity in contrast to the 200 series..

Actually untrue. The fuel capacity of the BA -100's is technically marginally greater than the -200's!

The -100's held 18,912kgs vs the -200's 18,728kgs [both at SG0.785kg/l]

The difference in range came from the certified weights:
-100CFM -200CFM
MZFW 59000kg 60500kg
MTOW 68000kg 73500kg
MLW 63000kg 64500kg

So the difference between MZFW and MTOW is 9 tonnes for the -100 and 13 tonnes for the -200 giving the range difference.

[saman]

Now, let's get the anorak out!

The -100s notionally had dry centre sections - except those of BCAL - later BA. The Air Inter and Air France -100 aircraft - now all AFR - had dry centre sections and those of BCAL had wet. I thought the BCAL -100s had the same capacity as the -200 but I bow to the knowledge of TopBunk.

[Skipness One Echo]

It's all to do with what engines are fitted. If it's the V2500 engine, then it's fitted with wingtip fences, if not then it's not!!

No it bloody well isn't.The first 21 aircraft built were series 100s, everything after is a series 200. It has nothing to do with engine choice.

Only one A320 ever carried BCAL colours and it was resprayed before delivery to BA. Before you jump down my throat, Caledonian was a different airline.

[Tediek]

I met G-BUSE and G-BUSB in the Mojave dessert this week. Not much left, just the fusalage.

tried to include the picture but can't get that to work. if you want the photo's send me a PM