I would agree with that. The A322 would have been a stretched A321, a competitor to the 757-300. The 757-300 didn't do well so neither would the A322. If the 757-300 had done a lot better, then maybe Airbus would have considered proposing an A322 as a competitor.
Quoting cchan (Reply 1): A360 or A370 maybe a replacement of the A320 series.
You mean as a replacement of the A320NEO. Because the A320NEO is already set to replace the Classic A320 which exist since the late 80s. Maybe the A360 will be the A320NEO replacement and the A370 will be the A330 replacement, or A345/346 replacement, when we get closer to the middle of the XXIst century. These models would do their maiden flight in the middle of the 30s and enter service in the early 40s or so, if Airbus engineers start thinking of them soon.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 4): Already exists -- the A320-200 has been around for years...
Oh yes, it has been around since the early 90s when the A320 was all new. Not many A320-100s were built.
But now I want to ask a question. Why wasn't the A330-200 called the A329? That would have made perfect sense.
pnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8281 times:
Quoting American 767 (Reply 5): I would agree with that. The A322 would have been a stretched A321, a competitor to the 757-300. The 757-300 didn't do well so neither would the A322. If the 757-300 had done a lot better, then maybe Airbus would have considered proposing an A322 as a competitor.
I agree with this point somewhat but consider that the market has changed. While I do not know exactly what is in production & not, I would be willing to bet that there may be a market in between the narrow body & wide body segments. Whether or not that former 757 market is large enough to warrant a new aircraft is unknown to me.
Currently, the highest capacity narrow body planes are the B739 (seats 215 in HDL with range of 2700 nm) & the A321 (seats 220 in HDL with range of 3000 nm).
The lowest capacity wide body aircraft in production are the A332 (380 seats in HDL with range of 7250 nm) & the B763 (350 seats in HDL with range of 5990 nm). I do not know how much longer the B763 production line will continue. The B783 was cancelled.
There are no in production models that have between 220 & 350 seats with range in between 3000 & 6000 nm. It is here that I believe an A322 seating up to 260 in high density with a range of up to 4500 nm may succeed. There are many emerging economies in South America, Africa & Asia that would benefit from this type of aircraft. They did not buy 757s before because their markets at that time could not support it but they have grown a lot since then. What do you think? Am I way off?
I think that it will depend if a lot of airlines will request the manufacturers to design an airplane with a 250-260 seating capacity and what the CASM will be compared to other models currently in production or under study. Like you say, it depends on the market.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6238 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7413 times:
Quoting American 767 (Reply 4): Why wasn't the A330-200 called the A329? That would have made perfect sense.
Yes, you are right. But Airbus namings never made sense, they just sort of happened. And that is true all way back to the very first Airbus plane.
Of course it all started with various ideas or projects in their early state. The one project, which got momentum, was a short/medium haul airliner for roughly 300 passengers. Somehow the name Airbus 300 stuck to it.
When RR cancelled development of the RB-207 engine for it, they they were faced with two options:
1. Cancel the Airbus 300 project
2. Modify it to fit another engine.
They chose option 2 and shrunk the 300 project to a roughly 250 seat variant which could use the somewhat weaker GE CF-6-50 engine.
The only sensible thing would be to rename it Airbus 250. But they didn't do that. They named it A300B (the "B" meaning "shrink to fit CF6-50").
We all know A300B-1, A300B-2 and A300B-4. But But other suffix digits were used for other projects which were more or less based on the A300. As long as they were projects only, then they were called TA-x ("x" being a sequential digit). TA means "twin aisle" (there was also an SA project).
TA-9, TA-10 and TA-11 are especially interesting. TA-10 was the first to be launched and should have been named A300B-10. (TA-9 and TA-11 were shelved due to lack of engines). But since the technicians had already for a long time been talking about the "threehundred-ten", then the name A310 stuck.
So by accident they had initiated the same steps of ten as Boeing had mostly been using (except for the 720).
The SA became A320, and the TA-9 and TA-11 finally emerged as A330 and A340 respectively.
Next came A380, another name which doesn't make sense at all.
It's a shame that nobody seems to be able to apply proper names to airliners any longer, like in the good old days of Comet, Caravelle, Trident, Tristar, Concorde, Mercure, Coronado, Concorde etc. Boeing at least tried with Stratoliner for the 707, but waited fifty years with Dreamliner for the 787 - which will hardly stick either.
Saab in Sweden at least admitted that they had no fantasy when after forty years they produced a very much upgraded 34 seat version of the Saab Viking. They thought that Saab 34 was a too low number compared other planes. Three digit names were the norm, so they put a zero behind to become Saab 340.
Maybe in fifty years time the Twin Otter will still be the only airliner with a proper name. Or will it be out of production in year 2061? You think so?
[Edited 2011-10-28 18:22:58]
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Don't you think it would be underpowered? Boeing would have faced the same issue if it had designed a 747 twin. Unless GE, PW and RR come up with a highly powerful high-bypass ratio power plant delivering more than 100000lbs of thrust. I see the A350 as being the largest twin Airbus will ever make. I don't see Boeing or Airbus making a double decker twin.
HomsAR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1090 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3649 times:
Quoting American 767 (Reply 12): Don't you think it would be underpowered? Boeing would have faced the same issue if it had designed a 747 twin. Unless GE, PW and RR come up with a highly powerful high-bypass ratio power plant delivering more than 100000lbs of thrust. I see the A350 as being the largest twin Airbus will ever make. I don't see Boeing or Airbus making a double decker twin.
Engines with 100K+ thrust already exist (GE90-110B and -115B).
What you'd really need is an engine with 200K+ thrust (assuming that, for engine-out performance, one of those engines would have to perform the equivalent of three of the A380's existing engines). That would be something to see.