Talk:Airbus A320 family

Specification

Would it be possible to display the specifications for the IAE V2500-A5 A320-200? The reason I ask is the IAE engine has the majority market share on the A32x and it seems silly to state solely the specifications of the lesser seeling engine. See: http://www.i-a-e.com/engine/market.shtm.

According to the maximum range, the A320 has a range of 5700km or 3000nm while the A321 has a range of 5600km or 3050nm. It does not make sense that the A320 has a higher km range than the A321 but at the same time a lower nm range. Please check-up on this. --58.69.21.166 14:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The A321 can't fly as far as the A320, I know that to be a fact at any particular TOW. A321-200 has a lot more range than the A321-100, enough to allow give it US transcontinental range. I don't have the figures to hand for the A321 or A320 ranges though, sorry. --81.7.1.201 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Something's odd with these numbers. How can the A320 and A321 have precisely the same range and fuel capacity even though the A321 is a much bigger and heavier plane?!? 87.127.95.198 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fastest or best selling aircarft?

Can the A320 family said to be fastest or best selling aircraft. The 737 has been available since 1967, thats 40years and has total orders for 6775 planes, if you divide that, its gives you an average of about 170/ year. The A320 has been available since 1987, thats 20years with a total of 5328 orders, thats an average of 266/ year. Does that make it the fastest and best selling between the 737 and A320. Just a question to be sure if it can be determined that way.Melrosepark 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The A320 is by far the faster selling and the best selling in it`s class. No doubt. --89.245.200.106 (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The A320 family is faster selling, but as was stated, it has 5328 orders, while the 737 has well over 6775, so clearly the 737 has sold better, but not faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.65.12 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

flt. 1549- intentional ditch function on A320?

i heard it reported that the a320 has an "ditch button" which seals up minor fuselage openings to improve flotation. does anyone know of an RS that discusses this? or can post something about it? one question being how common is it, and it is prevalent across the entire 320/318 etc line? or what? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate article is needed on this? Device helped ensure US Airways plane would float --jmb (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The A320 ditching button can be seen here: [1]. The ditch button does indeed perform several functions to keep the plane floating longer. A news article claimed the pilots didn't have time to press the button in this case: [2] We will probably have to wait for the official NTSB report to know for sure if they pressed the ditch button or not.

PolarYukon (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is now well understood that the crew did not use the ditching system. The 'miracle,' if any, of the accident was the existence of the river in the necessary location, with rescue boats standing by, after the bird strikes. Sully will go to his grave wishing he had used the system. Some idiot, probably not typed in the A320, keeps trying to make this omission by the pilots a secret and removes reference to it from the article. Sully! Is that you? Hamishrex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishrex (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times that this comment is mispaced here as this section is only for short accident summaries. Those details belong to the accident article. And I'm not an idiot as I'm fully able to actually find this accident article. Also your added comment really looks like POV. --Denniss (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You are an idiot so long as you continue to remove a perfectly valid reference to a now well known fact that contributed to the accident. In paragraphs regarding other accidents above the Hudson case there are many references to crew contributions. Perhaps you are not, as I am, a professional aviator and thus do not understand that pilots make mistakes that can kill people. In this case, the airplane sank more rapidly that it would have had the ditching system been used properly. THAT mistake could have killed people. When the civil cases go to trial, this matter will be a central consideration. Hamishrex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishrex (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not keep adding the section without further discussion and also remember WP:CIVIL. The accident section is a summary that leads readers into the detailed accident article. Being referenced does not make a difference. Also this page is not for making points in preparation for a legal case. MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for the first time at communications I have received in a separate location, I discover I was told it was 'vandalism' to carefully report that the crew did not use the very uncommon capability the A320 has available to make a water landing less dangerous. As I have discussed this with many of my professional pilot colleagues and found general agreement that the failure to deploy this system was a major mistake give the importance of its use in the circumstances, and the ease with which it can be engaged, I find the suggestion that my including it in the text regarding the incident in the following way ('It is notable that the crew failed to utilize the plane's built-in ditching system which would have reduced the danger of sinking. ') was 'vandalism' incomprehensible. I am not involved in any legal action regarding this incident and have no axe to grind. I was merely pointing out what all people familiar with such situations know very well. If a flight crew has made such an omission, that fact will be used to the advantage of any parties who want to extort money from the airline, of which there is a growing line according to press reports. Certainly I did not intend to offend the editors in any way, and am quite surprised at their reaction. Frankly, I am at a loss as to how such a reaction may be avoided in the future. In this instance, given the text of other accident reports published above the A320 article which mention crew activities, the editors seem to have been quite arbitrary and aggressive. Hamishrex

Not sure anybody is being agressive other editors are just trying to make the article conform with the consensus on what can and cant be included. Doesnt stop anybody bringing it up on this talk page for discussion. This is not a dispute about what you are saying what is being pointed out is this is not the right place for that information which is the accident article, which already has a paragraph on the ditching function. Need to note that vandalism is often used when editors try and keep adding information after is has been reverted refer WP:BRD and should be taken in that light. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the following text in a message from 'User:Denniss|Denniss.' ('Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Airbus A320 family page.') I consider the use of the invective 'nonsense' as a characterization of my edit to be aggressive, abusive, and unacceptable.--Hamishrex 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishrex (talk • contribs)

I think you will find that it is a standard warning template Template:Test2 and is really a pretty mild warning in wikipedia terms the real vandalism warnings are a lot stronger - so the user was just using standard warnings templates as I said above do not get hung up on the words used in warnings. Also note that discussion on the warnings given and not really relevant the the A320 which is to discuss content. Thank you.MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the content of the article, I know our British friends wish to be involved in all aspects of cutting edge technology and in most cases have developed everything! The first computer! The first supercruise aircraft! Etc. Etc. Please eliminate all references to the the BAe 'JET' program. To actually imply that this program is the genesis of the A320 series is insulting. From 1965 no less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.53 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Twirl media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Item closed - user has been blocked

---

An IP user keeps adding a link to http://media.twirltour.com/Airbus320/index.html which I have removed twice as I believe it does not add any value to the article but appears to be a promotional link for TwirlTour. The link has now been added in again by User:TwirlTour (which appears to be a conflict of interest!) whith the comment that it conforms to rich media external links requirements and appeals not to delete it again. Despite my request to bring it to the talk page. I could probably remove it again on COI concerns but for the same reaspn we dont have hundreds of links to photo sites it doesnt really add any value to the article either. Any comments please. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User keeps adding link without discussion and insists it meets requirements for WP:COI,WP:EL and WP:SPAM, which is probably an indication it doesnt. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Primary users?

Following the addition of this message, I will be adding another airline to the primary users section - JetBlue. It is not currently mentioned on the A320 page but according to the Wikipedia article about JetBlue Airways, JBAW is the biggest user of the A320 in the world so I figure it's worth mention. CreepyMan (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It will probably be removed as JetBlue does not have the largest fleet of all the A320 family, at only 107 A320s it needs a few more to catch up with the airlines in the infobox. Nothing stopping a mention in the A320 section of the text if you can add a reliable reference that it is the biggest. MilborneOne (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant specifically the A320 aircraft, as in just the A320, not the 319, 318, 321, etc. CreepyMan (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox covers all the family not just the A320. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A321 in Microsoft Flight Simulator X

I recently made an edit adding to the section on the A321 the fact that the aircraft is featured in Microsoft Flight Simulator X, widely considered the industry-standard aviation simulator. Flight Simulator X is used by real pilots across the world to train. Two editors have challenged my edit on the grounds that it is not notable. However, it is highly significant that the A321 is included in the simulator, as this brings it to a wide audience of pilots across the world.

I will await feedback from the community before making further edits. Drummerdg (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who removed it as not notable. It is not an industry-standard aviation simulator it is a computer game. It not used by pilots for real training as it isnt accredited training device under international regulations, note the industry classes devices into Simulator (at the top end) and flight training devices (at the bottom end), a computer game is none of these. I also interested why the A321 is highly significant rather than any other commercial simulator (or aircraft type), as far as I am aware all the real A320 family training is done on A320 simulators (which are also used for the A319). Sorry it is just a game and is not notable to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, I have better things to do than waste time arguing here. I will the leave the article alone because I'm sure my edit would continuously be wrongly removed. I would like to correct your misconception, however: while it is true that FSX is not FAA accredited like X-Plane is, it IS used widely to train by real pilots. And it is significant that the A321 is included because (to the best of my knowledge) it is the first Airbus to be included in any of the sims in the franchise. Drummerdg (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK not sure it is an argument more of an explanation of why your edit was reverted, but thanks for understanding the reasons, although perhaps the word wrongly removed is not really valid. I still want to repeat the point that real commercial pilots dont use unlicensed computer games for training. If they did why would airlines need to spend huge sums of money on flight training devices and even more for on full flight simulators. But that is not relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Switch to LCD Displays.

While this will not give an exact date, it will help pin down when the switch to LCD displays occured. I was a pilot for USA 3000 airlines which operates the A320. One of our aircraft had the LCD displays - N270AV, which was MSN 2325, and entered service on 12/13/2004. We also had N271AV/MSN 2327. Despite being two serial numbers later, it entered service two weeks earlier than N270AV and has the old CRTs. So clearly it was at some point around that date and serial number that the switch occured.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Aircraft as early as MSN 1961 (G-SUEW with Thomas Cook) have LCD screens, despite MSN 1942 (G-DHRG with Thomas Cook) having the older CRT screens. Both were early 2003-build aircraft. British Airways had A320 family aircraft delivered with CRT screens which are much newer than that. Not sure which aircraft was the 'first' to have LCD screens but it was essentially a customer option for several years until CRTs were phased out completely on the new build aircraft (I believe it is no longer possible to order a new CRT-screened Airbus). To complicate matters further, older aircraft can be retrofitted with LCD screens! SempreVolando (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A318-100 and A319-100 don't exist

Contrary to what many editors believe, there is no such thing as the A318-100 or the A319-100 so please stop putting the "-100" after it, its inaccurate. If you see other articles with "-100" after the A318 or A319, then please remove it. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ all the A318 and A319s are A318-100 and A319-100s so please dont just remove them at will. The reason they ae not sometime listed without the the -100 at the end is that they only have series 100. So they are all 100 series aircaft. So to have the -100 is not wrong. (You have seen the list of variants further down the page at Airbus_A320_family#Engines?) MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. But still, to me if there is only one variant, there is no point in stating it. Thanks for letting me know, --Plane Person (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK but you are right in most instances like airline articles it is not needed, but sometimes it needs to be added in specs and tables, one day we might have an A319-200!!. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

British Airways A318 flights LCY - JFK

On September 29th this flight was announced. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8279408.stm. A318s will be configured to carry 32 passengers in business class, will take off from LCY at less than maximum weight to allow for the 5.5 degree take off and will thus need to refuel at Shannon in Ireland. Flights will carry the BA001 flight number last carried by Concorde Soarhead77 (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Service ceiling and speed numbers

Considering in-flight GPS on A319 flights I've been on have shown 38000' and maybe 570mph at that altitude, could someone update or double-check the numbers? Maybe using different engines or having different loads has a bearing on this. Cwolfsheep (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The service ceiling on aircraft are adjustable,depending on demand,weather,windshear,route,and other factors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.7.137.182 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

External link proposal

I would like to propose the external link: http://www.myairlease.com/resources/orders_deliveries_prices. I appreciate that the link leads to a commercial website but I think it can be added because of the following:

1. Many aircraft pages have valid external links to commercial websites. The A380 page for example has a link entitled “Everything about the A380 at FlightGlobal.com”. Clearly, this page provides very useful data on the A380 and anyone following this link can either further explore flightglobal.com or return to Wikipedia. Similarly, the proposed link provides the list price, current orders, deliveries, market values and lease rates of the A380 and anyone following this link can either further explore myairlease.com or return to Wikipedia.

2. The information provided in this link is very useful, highly specialized, continuously monitored for currency and rather difficult to obtain (in such format and grouping) Free of Charge.

FYI, I have added this comment to a lot of pages in order to receive an as accurate and representative feedback as possible. I think the proposed link is a worthwhile addition so, at your discretion, pls add it to the article. Thanks Aegn3 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is just WP:SPAM and fails to meet the requirements of WP:EL - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-Engined A320

Now this is looking more and more likely to happen, should a section be added on the potential new engines for the A320. See flight global article http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/14/337136/airbus-sees-lifespan-of-at-least-10-years-for-re-engined.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by A James 72 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

added a whole A320 Enhanced section.Wispanow (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Boring layout and images

It will NOT do, adding just another pic with the only difference of painting.

And the layout is boring too. A380 or B737 are better. Wispanow (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done some things. Wispanow (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long

I Personally think this article is too long. knowing all those Aircraft belong to the same family I purpose to leave one article shorter than this as A320 Family, and then creat separate files for:

A318

A319

A320

A320-F

A321

This will make this artible to be a lot easy to read and follow.DG (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It has always been the intention to split out the individual types one day when the article got to big but because it involves a lot of work it should really be done as a team effort co-ordinated through the WP:AIRCRAFT project. It has to be done the right way as to preserve the article history and not to break the attribution for copyright reasons. It is not just a matter of creating a new article for each type this article has thousands of incoming links that all need to be sorted at the same time. Not a job for an individual and may need to be done one type at a time, so can I suggest you raise it at the aircraft project so it can be co-ordinated and done at the appropriate time and with the correct attribution. Please dont create new article or change this one until you have some project agreement. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, that the article is long, but not too long. And:

• dividing it in the different length means to repeat ALL similar data on all pages.
• if you compare to Boeing 737 and its updates - especially "Next Generation", it seems to be better to make an article Airbus A320 Enhanced family. Why:
  • New engines have new data in thrust, range, weight
  • New cabin, see weight
  • New wing-box, see weight
  • New winglets and other wing-changes, see weight and range

There are a lot of other changes. The main thing against a separate article is, that Airbus makes a continuous change, and it is unclear, what specific, produced A320 in a WHOLE can be seen as "Enhanced". The range of changes is by far big enough.

I propose, to expand the "Enhanced" section, and if the new engines are fixed, create the new article with new data. Wispanow (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the original comment was to split the article by type nothing to do with enhancements. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But i given reasons why thats not "good". If its splitted, it should be by generation, not by length. Wispanow (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but that is not how the A320 family is viewed at the moment - it does not appear to have any generation to the general reader. The main generation issues at the moment are related to software releases a subject that is not even discussed at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"but that is not how the A320 family is viewed at the moment - it does not appear to have any generation to the general reader": This appearance and viewpoint has to be changed to the reality. And i am not talking about software. If Wikipedia only repeats what everybody already knows: it will be useless. Wispanow (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK what is the difference between a 2000 and 2010 built A320 other than the software build standard (which does by the way change some of the hardware features on the flightdeck) ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See "Wispanow (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2010" and A320 Enhanced section. Engines are developed currently, wing-box don´t know. Therefore. Wispanow (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just looks like a number of cosmetic changes - nothing really worth a separate article on - perhaps it can be revisited when a change in engines is announced. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we merge all 737 together with the 707: its just a 2 engined 707, with some "cosmetic changes", as you call it, isn´t it? Wispanow (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you dont understand the point this article is nothing to do with Boeing 737 not the same company they dont work the same way. What major change has taken place in the A320 for example in the last ten years that would identify it as a seperate variant/model. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats what i say: If the A320 Enhanced is ready, a new article. No more jokes about cosmetic changes from 707 to 737 or A320 to A320 Enhanced. Wispanow (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Airbus A320 Enhanced family article should merge with Airbus NSR, which is somehow replaced by the "Enhanced", and we have to wait 2 decades for.Wispanow (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article should be split into A318, A319, A320 and A321. The Boeing 737 page goes further and breaks it down by generation. Here, however we have cobbled together a single article about different aircraft. The Boeing 737 page models are better. I don't know how the pages are divided on other languages. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The best way is to start is with the A318 then later the A319 which could both sustain a seperate article but with so many incoming links it would probably need to be done as a team effort with the aircraft project. Generation is not a problem as it is normally the software standard that changes and is not obvious so they can for now be treated as one generation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the above discussion

I think MilbourneOne has the right idea has the right idea. Perhaps we could start a draft article on the A318, then work our way to the A321. That way we could discuss this with draft proposals for alternative pages. Anyone agree, if we can get consensus on this at least we can begin dividing the pages.

Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DrukAir A319s

I'm not sure this is true and accurate but as far as I know, DrukAir (Bhutan Airlines) use A319 with engines from A321. They have to do that because the Paro airport runway is short and right after take-off the pilots have to perform an extremely steep climb to avoid a hill right in front of the runway. Does anyone know anything about it? And if it's true, maybe it's worth including in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.35.57 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The two DrukAir 319s are -115 models with CFM56-5B7 engines - dont see anything peculiar about them they are rated at 120kN so not the same as the A321. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

elbow-rests in Airbus A320

is it possible to lift up the elbow-rests on an Airbus A320-100/200 seat? thank you 85.74.175.211 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is really for discussing the article not for general questions, but as each airline has different seats and sometimes aircraft of the same airline may have different seats I suspect only the airline can help with your question. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A319LR operators

I Readed : "Lufthansa, Swiss International and Air France offer a premium business service between Europe and the USA using A319LRs operated by the French Aero Services Executive and the Swiss PrivatAir"

This is not true anymore. The 2 operators had removed the A319s from their fleets :
Aero Services Executive's fleet
Privat Air Germany's fleet (Privat Air had registered its A319 in Germany)

My mother tongue not been english, could someone please rephrase the sentence ? René Le Conte (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbers sold

Being as the article is merged, we only have a number of the total sales, a figure in excess of 4,400. I would imagine the A319 and A320 probably count for at least 3,500 of these. I've done a Yahoo search for a more refined set of statistics but I can't find anything. Somewhere on the page we should give a number of the total numbers built of each aircraft type. Can anyone find these figures. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be a useful source: [3]

From Airbus.com -> Corporate information -> Orders & Deliveries. It's broken down by model, by customer, and by region.

It's important to distinguish between the numbers sold, delivered, and in operation. They differ. When you say "in excess of 4,400" I presume you mean deliveries. If you count orders that have not yet been fulfilled the number passes 6700. According to that spreadsheet, 1266 A319 have been delivered, and 2469 A320.

bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to deliveries. At the top of my head I think including orders it is just over 6000. Thanks for the source, I shall look to improve the information on this page.

Kind regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Heading changes discussion

I was asked by an unknown IP user to discuss my minor changes to the article to realign the heading to conform to WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. However, before I was able to open a discussion, the IP user moved the disputed content to Airbus A320 Enhanced. Could the IP user please point me to the discussion concerning forking the sections to a new article? I'm certain he/she would not have doen this without discussing it somewhere, and gaining a consesnus to do so, since this a a much lmore serious action than mere heading level changes, which he/she deemed necessary of discussion. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

-Guidelines are not a must but must be used concerning to the content.

-The A320 Enhanced section exists for months. It is NOT a length- or freighter-variant.

-This is imho the best option to shorten the article and make it future-proof. 77.185.33.172 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Summarizing the existing text would be a better option. There are not significant enough differences overall for A320 Enhanced to need a new, separate article, imo. Maybe the A320 NEO, but that looks to be mainly an engine change with not much else upgraded. -fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Its the A320 Enhanced INCLUDING NEO. BOTH can have a new article, and the name of the plane is A320 Enhanced. Just noticed you moved it to the top. Cant see much sense, but i dont discuss this further. Notice its a new plane.77.185.33.172 (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources released today regarding the launch of hte NEO, the Enhanced is different. The NEO will have all of the improvements of the Enhanced, but they aren't the same as far as I can tell fromthose sources. Anyway, splits do need to be discussed beforehand on large pages such as this one, esecailly involoving a section you already asked for a dicsussion about. - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Far too many images

I love this article and I enjoy looking at images of the aircraft which are relevant to that section of the article. However, there are, in my opinion, far too many exterior images of the A320 family which make the article look very cluttered. Would it not make sense to have one or two exterior views, one cockpit shot, one cabin shot and maybe a picture of the engines? There are eleven external shots on this article. I appreciate that it has to cater for all four models, but do we really need pictures of eleven different liveries? Seeing eleven pictures of different airlines taking off and landing adds nothing new to the article and may be one of the reasons why this article doesn't have 'good article' status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.69.16 (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right all that is needed is reasonable exterior view of each variant. I have removed one of the A318 images as it was almost the same. We have two A320-200 images Wizz-Air and Air France one of those could go. And we have two images of an A321 Jordanian and Monarch again one could go. I think the rest of the images all show different aspects of the aircraft. The image with all three on at the bottom shows more building then aircraft so could go. The video doesnt actually add that much to the article either. But we dont actually have an image of the original A320-100. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Blended winglet"?

I see that this article contains the following text:

The NEO will also include some modifications to the wing, mainly the installation of blended winglets called "Sharklets"...

The problem I see here is that "Blended Winglet" is a trademark of Aviation Partners, which is allied with Boeing. I'm pretty sure that no Airbus literature will use that term to describe their winglets, even though they are winglets and they have a smoothly blended transition between the wing and the blade of the winglet.

Any objections if I just remove the word "blended?" Any proposals for a more elegant fix? Any arguments that this should be left as-is?

Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K. BoKu (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem that this has to be fixed? "Blended winglets" seems to be fairly common terminology for these. These are not standard winglets from 20 years ago. Wikipedia does not mark trademarks, btw. -fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

The second paragraph in this section has a mistake that is then used to introduce largely spurious links to the Trident. "The A320 was an evolution from the JET (Joint European Transport) study commenced in June 1977[7] and based at the then BAe (formerly Hawker Siddeley) site in Weybridge, Surrey, U.K.. The Hawker Siddeley team had previously produced a design called the HS.134 "Airbus" in 1965, an evolution of the HS.121 (formerly DH.121) Trident,[8] which shared much of the general arrangement of the later JET3 study design. The name "Airbus" at the time referred to a BEA requirement, rather than to the later international programme."
Weybridge was a BAC and Vickers establishment and BAe's JET contribution largely grew out of BAC X-11 and 2-11 studies. Much of the systems design of the A320 shows Vickers influence.Sir smellybeard (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Breaking up

User MilborneOne suggested to me to break up the article Airbus A320 family into smaller daughter articles, such as Airbus A321, Airbus A319 and Airbus A318. I think this should be considered because the article I'm working on right now is pretty big – that's before my work is done. Any comments about this? Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion started at WT:WikiProject Aircraft#Break Airbus A320 family up into separate articles for anyone interested. This article would remain and there would be separate articles on the main models in the A320 family (A318, A319, A320, & A321). The family article would probably shortened after all the splits are done. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• As nobody has objected please find Airbus A318 - still need to trim the data from this article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The A318 page looks good so far. If we're going to have articles on all the variants, it might be better to move this page (Airbus A320 family) back to [Airbus A320]], and not have a separate overview/family article. The A320 is the first model anyway, and all the others are variants of it, so this should be fairly logical and intuitive to readers. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne for starting us off with the A318 article. I would be in favour of a standalone Airbus A320 article (in addition to A319 and A321 of course), but would propose keeping the separate Airbus A320 family article which could be used to summarise the family development / timeline, with appropriate links to the standalone articles. SempreVolando (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the A320 model should be covered in the A320 family article or in its own separated article. Maybe that should be put off until after the A318, A319 and A321 articles have been split off. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep things simple. Wait for my myriad of edits on this page first, before creating daughter articles, because it can get messy. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 07:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a split can go far, because there is so much commonality between the variants. Yes, the "parent" article is long, but if some content was hived off to child articles but (quite reasonably) it retained content that's common to all variants, or to the programme as a whole, plus the briefest mentions of each variant before wikilining to an article on it... then the parent article would hardly be much shorter. And the single A320 label belies some substantial technical changes partway through the programme - I daresay the difference between a current A320 and the first one to roll off the production line is greater than the difference between current A319 and A320. However, if A318, A319 &c variants get their own articles I think it's reasonable & consistent to have one for the A320 variant. bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Range Figures

The A319 section has the following text:

"With virtually the same fuel capacity as the A320-200, and fewer passengers, the range with 124 passengers in a two-class configuration extends to 3,350 km (1,810 nmi), or 6,850 km (3,700 nmi) with Sharklets."

These look like the range at MZFW and MTOW with max fuel figures for the current design, regardless of sharklets. Either way, the 3.5% from the sharklets would not pan out to the 2000 nmi mentioned here. Mgw89 (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)