Range, Fuel NY LON Options

[Fast Jet]

In a video dipicting a British Airways A318 taking off from London City - the caption says that the A318 can go from London City to New York.

I am obviously missing something here. If it is say, more than 3,000 NM to New York USA - by Great Circle Track. And, the "light" range of the A318 is 2000 NM tops. and the historic winds (80%) are invariably (more than 80%!!) Westerly i.e., from the West at around 40 odd knots at those flight levels - then,. . . . . hang on in there - I will check capacity of the fuel tanks. . . well the wingspan is the same as the A320 but the area. . . , I`m just revising but the body is shorter so the Centre tanks may be shorter but the spec range is 2000 NM TOPS.

So, how come it can make it to New York. very funny!!

What am I missing here? If a fat`n`tubby A320 can go for 4 hours and the ground speed is 411 say, then 411 times 4 = about 1,644 NM and on a fantastically good day. . .411 x 6hrs = 2466 NM.

Trying another angle = if the GFF is about 1090 x 2 engines then the total is 2180 innit? So assuming , assuming the capacity to be 19.3 tonnes = 8.8 hours of flying. So 20 mins to get up there oh ok, maybe.

I am truly lost. So is this en-route diversion then. . ? Whereby, you see what it does by the next waypoint which is also a diversion and then if it is . . . healthy you continue onto the next waypoint for diversion, etc., etc? tsk tsk, its such a shame. . . I thought I knew so much. . .but alas. . no.

Nope I still don`t get it - what is the answer? Is it that we land at Gander? Or is it a technical factor based on density altitude and. . . well,. . . it just, cannot be. . . can it?

It is very irritating when companies of supposed savoir fare make staements like this. . . one day, the punters will expect this and wonder why they are not getting it. Tough titty - people, we are landing here for fuel. Welcome to Thule - y`all look lovely in your bikinis!!!!

[Kilrah]

And, the "light" range of the A318 is 2000 NM tops.

Where did you find this number?
Airbus quotes a 3100nm range with max. pax load...

Wikipedia says

The A318 is available with a variety of different maximum take-off weights (MTOW) ranging from a 59 tonne, 2,750 km (1,500 nautical mile) base model to a 68 tonne, 6,000 km (3,240 nautical mile) version.
[...]
The lighter weight of the A318 gives it an operating range 10% greater than the A320, allowing it to serve some routes that the A320 would be unable to: London-New York, Perth-Auckland and Singapore-Tokyo, for instance.

So maybe you got old info, and obviously BA would have the longest range version (theirs are actually brand new)

[LearCapt]

I think the A318s used by BA have some aux tanks installed (which would be easily doable since they're carrying luggage for less people). Like Boeing with the BBJ, Airbus has aux tanks for the ACJ, and both manufacturers offer the extra tanks for their commercial models as well.

They also stop in Shannon, Ireland when westbound for fuel (though my understanding is that this is due to the short runway length at London City airport rather than a westbound-range problem. I haven't yet heard of one diverting due to Atlantic winds.

To quote the Airbus website:

For long-range missions, the cargo holds can be fitted with up to six removable additional centre tanks for increased range.

It also says they're available with up to 180-minute ETOPS, way more than adequate for an Atlantic crossing, even on the most southerly of the NATs.

[Fast Jet]

Ah, nice well informed answers, thanks guys. I actually did get, 2400 NM (obviously still air) and so I now go for 2000 only. but I had not reckoned on the long range tanks. Also, Sorry to that little old man at the train station = who, when we started to talk about flying he said that he had gone on holiday on a charter to Iceland from the UK. . . in an A320.and I tried to convince him that he probably went in a B75. seems am developing `not enough fuel` paranoia.

As you kindly suggested, I was prob60 using old data!!! Sorrrrreeeeeeeeee.

"The only time there is too much fuel in the aircraft, is when it is on fire" Quote from a US Airman. .

[Fast Jet]

I think the A318s used by BA have some aux tanks installed (which would be easily doable since they're carrying luggage for less people). Like Boeing with the BBJ, Airbus has aux tanks for the ACJ, and both manufacturers offer the extra tanks for their commercial models as well.

They also stop in Shannon, Ireland when westbound for fuel (though my understanding is that this is due to the short runway length at London City airport rather than a westbound-range problem. I haven't yet heard of one diverting due to Atlantic winds.

To quote the Airbus website:
It also says they're available with up to 180-minute ETOPS, way more than adequate for an Atlantic crossing, even on the most southerly of the NATs.

180 thats three hours, . .three 4s are 12 thats 1200 NM - - at least - yeh, alright I can live with that. Sorry, if you are 1200 NM off the coast of New York where does that put you on the NATSTRACK - -ah south of GreenLand Yeh, it would because you would be flying the Great Circle. therefore north a bit anyway. . .hmmm well,

more study required. appreciate all your input! How come no-one agrees with me on fuel?

Hey, I wasnt knocking BA - I fly BA all the time, and promote them vigorously - its just that here I am being generally prudent and then I get revealing news about taking an A318 acroos the pond.
Last time I looked, it was in a NorthWest B74 and it was about 2800/2900 NM and surprisingly about the same number of feet too (add a nought) - must have been windy upstairs that day.

[Fast Jet]

well, done my homework. It seems the tanks available on the A318, 319, and prob the 320 are bigger and fatter nowadays, so yes it is more than possible.