C Series Info
01-28-2019, 07:41 AM
#3341
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF
I don’t speak Frenchy....what is an A-322?
https://airwaysmag.com/manufacturer/...gs-797-launch/
01-28-2019, 03:14 PM
#3342
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by J Fish
I have heard one of the big issues when anylizing replacing the 757 with the 321 isn't range but cargo capacity. Apparently this is due to brake energy limits on the 321 due to the single truck landing gear.
01-28-2019, 06:20 PM
#3343
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by J Fish
I have heard one of the big issues when anylizing replacing the 757 with the 321 isn't range but cargo capacity. Apparently this is due to brake energy limits on the 321 due to the single truck landing gear.
You'll fill up the tanks, fill up the pax, carry a bunch of cargo, plus a couple jumpseaters and still not be overweight, and then landing weight is always no issue.
01-28-2019, 07:06 PM
#3344
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,987
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Landing distance and landing weight isn't an issue on the 321, so I kind of doubt this has any credence.
You'll fill up the tanks, fill up the pax, carry a bunch of cargo, plus a couple jumpseaters and still not be overweight, and then landing weight is always no issue.
You'll fill up the tanks, fill up the pax, carry a bunch of cargo, plus a couple jumpseaters and still not be overweight, and then landing weight is always no issue.
01-28-2019, 07:30 PM
#3345
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Landing distance and landing weight isn't an issue on the 321, so I kind of doubt this has any credence.
You'll fill up the tanks, fill up the pax, carry a bunch of cargo, plus a couple jumpseaters and still not be overweight, and then landing weight is always no issue.
You'll fill up the tanks, fill up the pax, carry a bunch of cargo, plus a couple jumpseaters and still not be overweight, and then landing weight is always no issue.
01-28-2019, 08:00 PM
#3346
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The concern is being able to reject a takeoff. The aircraft would also exceed the ramp allowable wheel weights at many airports. They are already taxi restricted at LGA with the current model.
01-28-2019, 08:24 PM
#3347
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Where did you see that taxi restriction in LGA for our current 321ceos?
Take a look just south of what are the D gates on the chart.
I haven't been current on NACO charts in years but the D-170 should be 170,000lbs for dual tandem gear.
01-28-2019, 08:25 PM
#3348
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by contrails
https://www.aopa.org/ustprocs/201901...rt_diagram.pdf
Take a look just south of what are the D gates on the chart.
I haven't been current on NACO charts in years but the D-170 should be 170,000lbs for dual tandem gear.
Take a look just south of what are the D gates on the chart.
I haven't been current on NACO charts in years but the D-170 should be 170,000lbs for dual tandem gear.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 01-28-2019 at 08:37 PM.
01-28-2019, 09:16 PM
#3350
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by sailingfun
I ride AA jumpseat all the time in LGA. They are restricted to 10 knot taxi speeds and 5 in corners due to damage occurring with the 321.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
