Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Airbus Numbering

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Pembo330
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2000
    • 936

    Airbus Numbering

    I'm sure this has been asked before, but does anyone know why Airbus chose to name the shorter version of the A320-200 as the A319 (and A318) and the reverse for the A321, when, the newer widebodies have gone for variants rather than A329 or A331 etc..

    ??
    Pembo 330

  • Bhoy
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2000
    • 2408

    #2
    right, please excuse me talking through a cloud of Stout (talking of which, is a there a stage at which the body has had enough pints of Guinness for one night?)...

    er... yeah, Airbusses.

    nah, I don't really know why they chose to go that particular way, although there are A321-100/-200's, as well as A320-100/200's (although, as far as I'm aware, only A319-100's).

    So I'd assume it was just easier to go for the terms 319/321 rather than coming up with 320-300 or whatever. it also allows room to expand the 320 at a later date.

    with the 330/340, isn't that just a continutaion of the 300/310 numbering programme, where there were various different models.

    er, tell you what.. the short answer is, I haven't got a clue. Maybe it's just pure Genious.

    Comment

    • robc
      Senior Member
      • May 2003
      • 641

      #3
      Also why have the just skipped, the 400 in the A340 series, perhaps to avoid similarities to the 744...

      Comment

      • GZYL
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2000
        • 1194

        #4
        There was an Airbus A340-400, only one prototype was built though. The project got cancelled. And that's about all the info I've got on that!

        Comment

        Unconfigured Ad Widget

        Collapse

         

        Working...
        X