A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Another AirBus-320 question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 21st 09, 03:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
pintlar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Another AirBus-320 question

I have seen reported that the AirBus-320 has a glide ratio of 1:15.
That was what our pilots told us the wings on Cessna 180-182 (L-19)'s glide
ratio was.
It does not seem consistent that a swept, thin airfoil, wing would have the
same glide ratio as the Cessna.
It is correct the AB-320 has a 1:15 glide ratio at zero power?
Those pilots also said a B-52 and a grand piano have identical glide ratios.


Ads
  #2  
Old January 21st 09, 03:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,217
Default Another AirBus-320 question

On Jan 21, 7:25*am, "pintlar" wrote:
I have seen reported that the AirBus-320 has a glide ratio of 1:15.
That was what our pilots told us the wings on Cessna 180-182 (L-19)'s glide
ratio was.
It does not seem consistent that a swept, thin airfoil, wing would have the
same glide ratio as the Cessna...


Some of the early smoothbore (straight turbojet) airliners such as 707
and DC-8 had best L/Ds up around 20:1, so I wouldn't be surprised at
15:1 for a high-bypass turbofan airliner, not at all. The sweep makes
it hard to hold laminar flow, but the thinness and high aspect ratio
are good things.

Thanks, Bob K.
  #3  
Old January 21st 09, 04:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
RST Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,147
Default Another AirBus-320 question

Well, let's do the math. The 320 has a best glide speed (max distance) of
about 220 mph while dropping about 1000 fpm at this speed. 220 mph = 3.66
mpm, or about 19,360 fpm. If you go forward 19,360 feet while dropping 1000
feet this is about a 19.36:1 glide ratio. Allowing for other factors not
presented in the data I've seen, 15:1 is eminently reasonable for the A-320.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"pintlar" wrote in message
...
I have seen reported that the AirBus-320 has a glide ratio of 1:15.
That was what our pilots told us the wings on Cessna 180-182 (L-19)'s
glide ratio was.
It does not seem consistent that a swept, thin airfoil, wing would have
the same glide ratio as the Cessna.
It is correct the AB-320 has a 1:15 glide ratio at zero power?
Those pilots also said a B-52 and a grand piano have identical glide
ratios.




  #4  
Old January 21st 09, 05:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Philippe[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Another AirBus-320 question

pintlar s'est penché sur son écritoire, nous avons lu:

It is correct the AB-320 has a 1:15 glide ratio at zero power?

At M0.8, the ratio is near 1:16
engines iddle, the flight path angle is less than 2.5° at minimum
clean speed. I have no idea about residual thrust....

Consider the cfm56-A have 2500kg thrust at FL350 and maxi cruise. You
may find the real ratio for a heavy plane (weight / 5000) unable to
reach MMo at FL350. Sorry, I never can test.


By
--
Volem rien foutre al païs!
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬
  #5  
Old January 21st 09, 10:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Another AirBus-320 question

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:25:49 -0700, "pintlar"
wrote:

I have seen reported that the AirBus-320 has a glide ratio of 1:15.
That was what our pilots told us the wings on Cessna 180-182 (L-19)'s glide
ratio was.
It does not seem consistent that a swept, thin airfoil, wing would have the
same glide ratio as the Cessna.
It is correct the AB-320 has a 1:15 glide ratio at zero power?
Those pilots also said a B-52 and a grand piano have identical glide ratios.

An a320 pilot I spoke to says the published glide ratio is 20:1 and it
can be stretched to something better than 30:1 with the right weight
and speed.

He said that sometimes the most difficult part of landing an A320-200
is getting the sucker down!
  #6  
Old January 21st 09, 11:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
pintlar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Another AirBus-320 question

It is correct the AB-320 has a 1:15 glide ratio at zero power?
Those pilots also said a B-52 and a grand piano have identical glide
ratios.

**********************
.. . . .I long time ago a Canadian pilot nursed a fuel exhausted 737 (mistake
at fuel loading between US and metric gallons) over 100 miles in British
Colombia to land at an abandoned military runway at that time being used as
a auto drag strip. He too was a glider pilot.
.. . . .Then there is the biggest AirBus in the 80's or 90's going East, a
tremendous distance, to glide to the Azores after losing its fuel during a
near fatal fuel transfer process ( damaged piping) to balance the plane. He
landed hotter than hell but managed to get it stopped.
.. . . .It is hard to believe those swept, thin profile airliner wings are
more efficient than those on the 182's. While the 182 wings must be 'low
wing load' type, one would imagine the airliner wing to be the opposite and
not as efficient. Strange, but evidently not true. I would think the drag
of two engine nacelles and windmilling engines, would also lower the drag
ratio. Again, seems I'm wrong.
.. . . .The British fibre glass 'home built' two seater that the TV serial
was made about, (the British Vetinarinan pilot/builder), had its wings
designed by an AirBus engineer. They were supposedly very efficient wings.
Too bad that company is no longer offering those kits. That was a beautiful
plane.


  #7  
Old January 21st 09, 11:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default Another AirBus-320 question

"pintlar" wrote in message
...
I have seen reported that the AirBus-320 has a glide ratio of 1:15.
That was what our pilots told us the wings on Cessna 180-182 (L-19)'s
glide ratio was.
It does not seem consistent that a swept, thin airfoil, wing would have
the same glide ratio as the Cessna.
It is correct the AB-320 has a 1:15 glide ratio at zero power?
Those pilots also said a B-52 and a grand piano have identical glide
ratios.


To paraphrase an old movie line: "If the B52 doesn't have a glide ration of
at least 15:1, I'll eat my hat!"

Peter



  #8  
Old January 22nd 09, 12:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Another AirBus-320 question

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:05:30 -0700, "pintlar"
wrote:

It is correct the AB-320 has a 1:15 glide ratio at zero power?
Those pilots also said a B-52 and a grand piano have identical glide
ratios.

**********************
. . . .I long time ago a Canadian pilot nursed a fuel exhausted 737 (mistake
at fuel loading between US and metric gallons) over 100 miles in British
Colombia to land at an abandoned military runway at that time being used as
a auto drag strip. He too was a glider pilot.


Not BC - Manitoba - the "Gimli Glider"
. . . .Then there is the biggest AirBus in the 80's or 90's going East, a
tremendous distance, to glide to the Azores after losing its fuel during a
near fatal fuel transfer process ( damaged piping) to balance the plane. He
landed hotter than hell but managed to get it stopped.
. . . .It is hard to believe those swept, thin profile airliner wings are
more efficient than those on the 182's. While the 182 wings must be 'low
wing load' type, one would imagine the airliner wing to be the opposite and
not as efficient. Strange, but evidently not true. I would think the drag
of two engine nacelles and windmilling engines, would also lower the drag
ratio. Again, seems I'm wrong.
. . . .The British fibre glass 'home built' two seater that the TV serial
was made about, (the British Vetinarinan pilot/builder), had its wings
designed by an AirBus engineer. They were supposedly very efficient wings.
Too bad that company is no longer offering those kits. That was a beautiful
plane.


  #9  
Old January 22nd 09, 01:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
pintlar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Another AirBus-320 question

To paraphrase an old movie line: "If the B52 doesn't have a glide ration
of at least 15:1, I'll eat my hat!"

Peter

*******************************
I was lead to believe the B-52's wing took a negative angle of attack when
the engines lost power. For the crew, that is nice to know that this is not
true.


  #10  
Old January 22nd 09, 03:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default Another AirBus-320 question

In article ,
"pintlar" wrote:

It is correct the AB-320 has a 1:15 glide ratio at zero power?
Those pilots also said a B-52 and a grand piano have identical glide
ratios.

**********************
. . . .I long time ago a Canadian pilot nursed a fuel exhausted 737 (mistake
at fuel loading between US and metric gallons) over 100 miles in British
Colombia to land at an abandoned military runway at that time being used as
a auto drag strip. He too was a glider pilot.


Not quite correct. Google "gimli glider"...

The aircraft was a 767, the flight took off from Montreal and made its
forced landing in Gimli, Manitoba, I don't think they made it 100 miles,
....

....and the confusion as caused by an incorrect conversion from litres to
kilograms and back again, leading to an incorrect amount of fuel being
added in Montreal (they used the figure for litres to pounds and so
ended up with 22,300 lb of fuel and not 22,300 kg).


For further details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

. . . .Then there is the biggest AirBus in the 80's or 90's going East, a
tremendous distance, to glide to the Azores after losing its fuel during a
near fatal fuel transfer process ( damaged piping) to balance the plane. He
landed hotter than hell but managed to get it stopped.
. . . .It is hard to believe those swept, thin profile airliner wings are
more efficient than those on the 182's. While the 182 wings must be 'low
wing load' type, one would imagine the airliner wing to be the opposite and
not as efficient. Strange, but evidently not true. I would think the drag
of two engine nacelles and windmilling engines, would also lower the drag
ratio. Again, seems I'm wrong.
. . . .The British fibre glass 'home built' two seater that the TV serial
was made about, (the British Vetinarinan pilot/builder), had its wings
designed by an AirBus engineer. They were supposedly very efficient wings.
Too bad that company is no longer offering those kits. That was a beautiful
plane.


--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
airbus - Latest Plane From Airbus.jpg [email protected] Aviation Photos 14 June 26th 07 09:41 AM
Which is easier: Boeing to Airbus, or Airbus to Boeing? Mxsmanic Piloting 9 February 21st 07 01:58 AM
A question on Airbus landings [email protected] Piloting 17 July 18th 06 09:05 PM
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good Excelsior Home Built 0 April 22nd 05 01:11 AM
Airbus Ace Simulators 0 March 2nd 05 05:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.