Airbus holds firm orders for 84 A318s, with the first delivery to Frontier planned for July. The Denver-based carrier is expected to receive the rest of its five CFM-powered aircraft by year-end. First delivery to Air France is planned in October, with three more due by the end of 2003. Air France has orders for 15 of the CFM-powered A318s and General Electric's Gecas leasing unit has orders for 30. International Lease Finance Corp. has placed orders for 15 and Tyco Capital Aerospace has orders for four. America West Airlines, which already operates A319s and A320s, has orders for 15 of the PW6000-powered A318s.

Airbus had intended to deliver PW6000-powered A318s this summer, but when the Pratt & Whitney engine came up 5-10% over in anticipated fuel burn, the introduction was delayed until late 2005--some 2.5 years late--while the engine manufacturer redesigned the compressor for the 23,800-lb.-thrust-class engine. Stuart Mann, director of product marketing for the A320 series, said the PW6000 holds many attractions for the A318. "The Pratt & Whitney engine will be less expensive to buy and operate, and cheaper to maintain with its quick teardown capability and low part count," he said. He added that initial test runs on the engine were favorable for Airbus' fuel-efficiency requirements.

I, along with three other pilot/journalists, had the opportunity to visit Airbus here to fly the A318 prototype (MSN 1599) late last month. The initial A318, it was originally fitted with PW6000 engines and made its first flight in January 2002. It was later equipped with the CFM56-5B turbofan engines and flew Aug. 29, 2002. The second prototype (MSN 1660) flew with its P&W engines on June 3, 2002. The first prototype accumulated 670 hr. in flight-testing, while the second accounted for 170 hr. The second A318 will be retrofitted with CFM56 engines and be delivered to Frontier this year.

Looking at the A318 on the Airbus test facility ramp, you know immediately that it is a shortened version of another aircraft. Three plugs were taken out of the A319 fuselage, two before the wing and one aft, for a total of 7.84 ft. (2.39 meters). The A318 is some 20 ft. (6.1 meters) shorter than the A320, the baseline aircraft for the family of single-aisle aircraft. The aircraft now has a stubby appearance with a higher vertical tail than necessary and it lacks the pleasing proportions of the A320 and A321. Actually, the tail fin and rudder in the A318 were slightly extended to give the aircraft more rudder authority in engine-out and high-angle-of-flight situations. The hydraulic jacks used on the rudder are the same as in the other A320-series aircraft.

Another noticeable difference is that the A318's forward cargo door had to be narrowed at the rear edge so it would not be obstructed by the wing fairing.

A first for Airbus was the use of laser welding on some of the unique fuselage panels. Because of the shortened cargo hold, Airbus does not provide for container use there. Total usable volume in the forward and aft cargo holds is 773 cu. ft. Mann said some operators of the longer fuselage A319 did not use containers in the cargo hold. Two strakes, one on either side of the nose, were added to improve boundary layer flow over the pitot system when in low-speed, high-angle-of-attack conditions, with a high thrust setting.

Once in the No. 1 prototype, we saw the aircraft was equipped with flight-test equipment, ballast and some seats. However, the A318 maintains the same interior cross-section as others in the A320-series. Seating in a two-class configuration allows for eight first-class seats and 99 in 32-in.-pitch economy seating. In an all-32-in.-seat-pitch configuration, the A318 can accommodate 117 passengers. Economy seating is in a three-by-three seat arrangement. The overhead bins appear to be more than adequate for most roll-on bags. A wide-aisle option is also available.

The flight was with Jacques Rosay, Airbus chief test pilot, flight-test engineer Didier Ronceray and flight-test engineer Bernard Kamps. There was nothing that differentiated the A318 cockpit from that of the A320, A330, A340-300 and A340-600s I had flown on previous evaluations. The layout was similar and the side-stick controller appeared to be the same as on the larger aircraft. But there were some differences which became apparent during the No. 1 prototype evaluation flight.

Because three of us had experience with Airbus aircraft, we opted to let a Lufthansa pilot, qualified only in Boeing aircraft, perform the engine start, taxi and takeoff. I would take my turn at altitude, looking at the Airbus approach of envelope protection and again in the landing pattern.

Ramp weight of the A318 was 116,182 lb. (57, 810 kg.) and fuel included in the weight was 21,835 lb. (9,925 kg.). The ramp weight was close to 89% of the maximum standard weight of the A318, but Airbus offers heavier weight options up to 149,900 lb. (68,000 kg.). Center-of-gravity calculation was 26.8% and Mann said that even with the 660-lb.-lighter PW6000 engines installed, center-of-gravity limitations were not a factor in the A318's performance.

Rosay had calculated the V1 takeoff decision speed to be 116 kt., the rotate speed at 120 kt. and the V2 safety speed was 124 kt. Both CFM engines were started reaching a maximum of 380C at peak. Rosay said that during the flight-test program, the CFM powerplants had proved to be reliable and problem-free, even during high-angle-of-attack testing. This probably came as no surprise to the Airbus test pilots, as the A319, A320 and A321 are offered with CFM56 engines.

Observing from the flight-test engineer's station, fuel flow at idle was 748 lb./hr./engine and 356 lb. of fuel was used during the 16 min. from engine start to takeoff. The target N1 engine speed for takeoff was 84.3%. The guest pilot in the left seat held the brakes until reaching 50% power, and acceleration was quick. Takeoff roll was 3,045 ft. (952 meters) as the pilot rotated slightly late. Distance to a 35-ft. altitude was 3,707 ft. (1,156 meters).

Passing through 10,000 ft., some 5 min. after takeoff and at 250 kt., the fuel flow was 5,890 lb./hr./engine. We were restricted to 18,000 ft. due to the lateness of the flight and air traffic control considerations.

With me in the left seat, Rosay, in the right, explained some of the differences between the A318 flight deck and systems from those of other Airbus aircraft. One noticeable difference was the Thales liquid crystal displays in the cockpit in place of cathode ray tubes. The 7.25 X 7.25-in. LCDs provide brighter and sharper information on the six displays. Mario Heinen, senior vice president of the single-aisle line, estimates that the LCDs represent a $10/hr. saving in operating costs based on better reliability and lower maintenance. Another change was the incorporation of a Thales combined standby instrument rather than individual performance elements found in earlier Airbus aircraft.

The nose wheel steering system was moved from one hydraulic system to another to assure that both nose wheel steering and normal brake function would not be lost with the failure of one system. And alternate braking control is now electric, rather than mechanical as it is in the A320. Goodrich and Messier-Dowty provide carbon brakes for the A318. Many of the valves and switches in the environmental control system were shifted to electrical to improve reliability as well as to assure quieter operation.

Lateral protection by the Airbus fly-by-wire system remains the same as in earlier models. Up to 33-deg. angle of bank, pitch is induced to remain at a steady state. Beyond a 33-deg. bank, the back stick has to be used to remain level. If pressure on the side-stick controller is released beyond 33 deg. of bank, the aircraft will revert to 33 deg. of bank.