A320 Mtow
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 Mtow
I know this figure is ultimately a company specific one but could someone explain to me when A320 MTOW increases were introduced and if one can tell by looking at the derivate (-xyz). The FCOMs given to us during training state MTOW to be 73,500 Kg. Since then I've seen FCOMs that state 70,000 Kg, 77,000 Kg and more recently I've even heard of a 78,000 Kg version.
Thanks
Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CO
Age: 50
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the tcds may help : http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc...20May%2009.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very exhaustive documentation above may help. I just want to add that you can "buy" different MTOWs from Airbus. Normally, the heavier the more you pay. You can even change your MTOW later (by paying more). Technically, there is no difference.
Most A320s in Europe have the 73.5 you mentioned above. But out of Europe, mostly in Asia with their longer flights, they rather choose the 77t version. It's all a matter of your network. In Europe you need less trip fuel so you rather stop at the MLW or MZFW.
hth,
Dani
Most A320s in Europe have the 73.5 you mentioned above. But out of Europe, mostly in Asia with their longer flights, they rather choose the 77t version. It's all a matter of your network. In Europe you need less trip fuel so you rather stop at the MLW or MZFW.
hth,
Dani
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Al tube.
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the 320s I've flown at Monarch are now 75500Kg and 77000Kg MTOW having been administratively increased. The 321s are 89000Kg and 93000KG, not surprising the wing that is basically the same as smaller models area wise runs out of climb potential!
Last edited by Alloy; 21st Nov 2011 at 18:23.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard of a modification to the flight control software which reduces stress on the wings and allows for an increased take off weight. Not sure if it's applicable to the entire A320 family.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CO
Age: 50
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is, as exemple, how route charges are established by eurocontrol. MTOW is a direct input.
EUROCONTROL - How Route Charges are established
EUROCONTROL - How Route Charges are established
In the early 90s I was working at Filton, and did a bit of work on the MTOW increases. Long time ago, but as I remember the sequence:
Basic prototype was 66 t MTOW
-100 series went to 68 t.
-200 went to 73.5t.
At that stage some customers started asking for an increase in MTOW. The request was to do with trans-continental flights in the US and Canada, where extra fuel was desired. The analysis of the 73.5 t wing had suggested that it could take more load, so an analysis was done at higher MTOWs. An initial analysis was done at 76 t, but the results were marginally below allowables. The anaylsis was then run at 75.5 t, which gave acceptable results. As I recall the 75.5 t allowance had some conditions attached, such as a different MMEL and some cg restrictions. Not all airlines took the 75.5 t option, due in part to the increase on field length required.
At that time the A321 was in planning, and there was talk of an increased MTOW version of the A320 using the A321 wing. I think the idea was to have a common wing for the A320 /A321 series. The A319 was still only a concept, the marketing people said there would be no demand for it.
The analysis that was done to confirm the 75.5 t MTOW was done using basic finite element methods, plus "hand-stressing" methods. It is possible that after I left the analysis was re-run using more accurate methods, which may have allowed an increase in MTOW.
Basic prototype was 66 t MTOW
-100 series went to 68 t.
-200 went to 73.5t.
At that stage some customers started asking for an increase in MTOW. The request was to do with trans-continental flights in the US and Canada, where extra fuel was desired. The analysis of the 73.5 t wing had suggested that it could take more load, so an analysis was done at higher MTOWs. An initial analysis was done at 76 t, but the results were marginally below allowables. The anaylsis was then run at 75.5 t, which gave acceptable results. As I recall the 75.5 t allowance had some conditions attached, such as a different MMEL and some cg restrictions. Not all airlines took the 75.5 t option, due in part to the increase on field length required.
At that time the A321 was in planning, and there was talk of an increased MTOW version of the A320 using the A321 wing. I think the idea was to have a common wing for the A320 /A321 series. The A319 was still only a concept, the marketing people said there would be no demand for it.
The analysis that was done to confirm the 75.5 t MTOW was done using basic finite element methods, plus "hand-stressing" methods. It is possible that after I left the analysis was re-run using more accurate methods, which may have allowed an increase in MTOW.
