A320 Sharklets
N4790P
Thread Starter
A320 Sharklets
I hope this is the correct forum.
Are there any discernible handling differences between sharklet and non sharklet equipped A320 CEOs, especially in crosswind conditions? (I believe this is effectively Std 1.9).
Thank you
Are there any discernible handling differences between sharklet and non sharklet equipped A320 CEOs, especially in crosswind conditions? (I believe this is effectively Std 1.9).
Thank you
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't noticed much of a difference in crosswind conditions, but some colleagues swear it is different. However, it has better climb performance and a higher initial cruise level with sharklets. Especially noticeable on the 321 of course.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Birmingham
Age: 39
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharklets are a little fishy around the yaw axis. They tend to be blown by crosswind completely because of the shark lets which is absolutely normal. Had the same with the 737 NG with winglets. Also they don't need a lot of power when flying ultralight weights with flaps 3. Good for the company bad for the pilots. But actually sometimes I don't realize sitting in a sharky.
N4790P
Thread Starter
Thanks for these responses.
My reason for enquiring is that we are about to qualify a new FFS at Std 1.9 (Std 2.0 data was only released this week) and somewhat surprisingly the OEM supplied data is still using the same mass properties data as 1.8 therefore no weight changes for sharklets or payload and it is peculiar that whilst the provision for sharklet performance has been made within the 1.9 aerodata, it’s not active!
Also the additional 100 nm range, at least from an aerodynamics standpoint, accounting for sharklets and the improved efficiency they’ll bring will not be reflected in a 1.9 FFS and the range will remain the same as Std 1.8
We are also getting conflicting comments from crews on the handling differences between aircraft equipped with and without sharklets and comments from a wider audience are thus very welcome and helpful.
Whilst we won’t be the first to qualify a Std 1.9, these ‘issues’ do seem (to us) to go against a number of regulations.
My reason for enquiring is that we are about to qualify a new FFS at Std 1.9 (Std 2.0 data was only released this week) and somewhat surprisingly the OEM supplied data is still using the same mass properties data as 1.8 therefore no weight changes for sharklets or payload and it is peculiar that whilst the provision for sharklet performance has been made within the 1.9 aerodata, it’s not active!
Also the additional 100 nm range, at least from an aerodynamics standpoint, accounting for sharklets and the improved efficiency they’ll bring will not be reflected in a 1.9 FFS and the range will remain the same as Std 1.8
We are also getting conflicting comments from crews on the handling differences between aircraft equipped with and without sharklets and comments from a wider audience are thus very welcome and helpful.
Whilst we won’t be the first to qualify a Std 1.9, these ‘issues’ do seem (to us) to go against a number of regulations.
Seems to carry a lot more energy on final approach when heavy, quite reluctant to decelerate below 200kts to allow for flaps 2. I tend to chop the power slightly higher to avoid a prolonged float.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a lot of sharklet input yet, but one procedure that has a tight turn to a short final has been an issue with energy management (180 incl angle). Luckily there is room to open it up a bit. (this is an RNP procedure, so there is good track data)
Seems to be pretty slick ac compared to the non-winglet variant.
ZFT, you are saying there is no payload difference on the sharklet compared to non-sharklet?
Seems to be pretty slick ac compared to the non-winglet variant.
ZFT, you are saying there is no payload difference on the sharklet compared to non-sharklet?
N4790P
Thread Starter
Undefire,
As the A320 FSTD 1.9 datapack doesn't account for the aerodynamic effects of the Skarklets, the 4% improvement in fuel burn and 100 nm increase in range cannot therefore be reflected on a 1.9 FFS
As the A320 FSTD 1.9 datapack doesn't account for the aerodynamic effects of the Skarklets, the 4% improvement in fuel burn and 100 nm increase in range cannot therefore be reflected on a 1.9 FFS
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
understood, but was curious about the payload, as the B variants give an increased payload on winglet vs non winglet models...
I guess you did answer when you stated the aerodynamic effects are not accounted for...
From what I have heard from drivers, they are not really prepared (ie trained) for the differences in the sharklet variant, especially on final.
I will not guess if there is specific training for sharklet variants?
I guess you did answer when you stated the aerodynamic effects are not accounted for...
From what I have heard from drivers, they are not really prepared (ie trained) for the differences in the sharklet variant, especially on final.
I will not guess if there is specific training for sharklet variants?
N4790P
Thread Starter
There isn't to the best of our knowledge and there are no 2.0 (NEO) FSTDs in service yet so can only be delivered as a classroom training course which (to us) seems totally inadequate.
Additionally, whilst the guidance from TLS has been to supply difference training as needed, we are struggling to understand what this should consist of other than what is fact i.e. range, fuel burn . Everything else is far too subjective (as posts here indicate).
What we do know is they are different and should thus be adequately and correctly trained for!
Additionally, whilst the guidance from TLS has been to supply difference training as needed, we are struggling to understand what this should consist of other than what is fact i.e. range, fuel burn . Everything else is far too subjective (as posts here indicate).
What we do know is they are different and should thus be adequately and correctly trained for!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gran Bretaņa
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the anecdotal stuff in company seems to be around them being a little slippery. I tend to feel that they slow down a bit like a 319 (ie. they don't like slowing down, and with a tailwind I'm more prone to drop the gear earlier), and people seem to think that they're more prone to float when landing. While that may be the case, every landing's different anyway, just look out the window and flare appropriately to reduce the rate of descent! Personally, I think they're quite nice to land.
The handling differences between a standard and sharklet 320 are certainly less pronounced than going from a light 319 into a heavy 321.
The handling differences between a standard and sharklet 320 are certainly less pronounced than going from a light 319 into a heavy 321.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps look at the flap settings and final approach speeds on sharklet vs non. I would assume that your company is going with CAT C/D depending?
With the sharklet being slicker, it does seem a little more difficult to slow down, so depending on the approach procedures you use, it may take a little more effort.
As mayday noted,how that is accomplished is certainly variable with conditions, or subjective such as dropping landing gear earlier...
For some of the RNP AR procedures, we will probably use the CAT D criteria (as with the 738) for the design to help with the turns.
With the float issue, will look at the differences in the pressure wave to see if there is a significant difference.
With the sharklet being slicker, it does seem a little more difficult to slow down, so depending on the approach procedures you use, it may take a little more effort.
As mayday noted,how that is accomplished is certainly variable with conditions, or subjective such as dropping landing gear earlier...
For some of the RNP AR procedures, we will probably use the CAT D criteria (as with the 738) for the design to help with the turns.
With the float issue, will look at the differences in the pressure wave to see if there is a significant difference.
