SEU wrote:

The 737 is not something that should be branded as a good example of updating older tech

Why? It's been given about 3 major updates and all have been in demand. Sure, Boeing played around with passenger lives on the MAX, but in the end even that pane will be a success in terms of numbers sold.

tealnz wrote:

Modern versions of the A310/A300 with all the “tricks” would offer much higher pax capacity than the A321. There would be a weight penalty for the aluminium tube and the circular profile, and for new-generation engines with bigger fans. As against that there would be weight savings for CRFP wing and wingbox optimised for MOM range, optimised gear, maybe revised empennage, plus the revenue advantages of a hold taking side by side LD3s. Question is whether the bottom line after development cost, production cost, sale price and prospective volume, would make it bankable. Answer so far seems to be no.

The only advantage of an A310 modernized would be belly cargo; it would be significantly heavier than an A321XLR with the same range; the A300 has been supplanted by the A330 in all missions. If one has heavy belly cargo requirements, one would probably need an A330.

To LAX772LR: ok I did not catch it. Anyway small difference between 752 and 753 is caused by rather high MTOW of 752. And many operators have lowered MTOW around 100 tons.

DLHAM wrote:

How about slap a slightly updated Version of the A310 wings on the A330-800, reduced thrust on the engines and much lower MTOW. AFAIK the A310 are pretty advanced even today. Completely new CFK wings of course are even better.

Boeing should get their act together and tinker a 767X, most if not all components needed do exist, they just need to be combined.

Not much "slapping" happens in the aerospace world, IMO.

Costs are huge, need to be able to project the return on investment or it just won't happen.

Ref: A380neo, A380-plus, A380-plus-plus, ...

LAX772LR wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Wasn’t it quite heavy?

No, in fact, quite the opposite:

752 to 753 is an 8 tonne increase in exchange for 23% higher pax certification.

Compare that to the A320CEO to A321CEO: 15 tonne increase in exchange for 21% higher pax certification.

Wrong numbers. The 757-300 was heavy.

757-300 OEW increased by 10%. MTOW increased by only 7%. Cabin area increased by 20%. Range DECREASED by 15%

A321NEO Vs A320NEO OEW increased by 13%. MTOW by 22%. Cabin area increased by 25%. Range increased by 14%.

The 757-300 was a bad stretch compared to the A321 based on those numbers. With both designs their OEW increased by a similar proportion to the cabin area gained. But the A321 clearly wins as it did not sacrifice range in the process. Adding range always increased OEW. Going from the 777-200, to 777-200LR the added range increased empty weight. Yet the A321 gained range with no extra OEW increase.

MTOW alone is not a stat that should be used to determine if an aircraft if overweight. Only empty weight should be used. That is like saying a light lean athlete is obese because they can carry more weight over their head.

RJMAZ wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Wasn’t it quite heavy?

No, in fact, quite the opposite:

752 to 753 is an 8 tonne increase in exchange for 23% higher pax certification.

Compare that to the A320CEO to A321CEO: 15 tonne increase in exchange for 21% higher pax certification.

Wrong numbers. The 757-300 was heavy.

757-300 OEW increased by 10%. MTOW increased by only 7%. Cabin area increased by 20%. Range DECREASED by 15%

A321NEO Vs A320NEO OEW increased by 13%. MTOW by 22%. Cabin area increased by 25%. Range increased by 14%.

The 757-300 was a bad stretch compared to the A321 based on those numbers. With both designs their OEW increased by a similar proportion to the cabin area gained. But the A321 clearly wins as it did not sacrifice range in the process. Adding range always increased OEW. Going from the 777-200, to 777-200LR the added range increased empty weight. Yet the A321 gained range with no extra OEW increase.

MTOW alone is not a stat that should be used to determine if an aircraft if overweight. Only empty weight should be used. That is like saying a light lean athlete is obese because they can carry more weight over their head.

A321neo range increases is purely because of ACTs giving the A321 additional fuel capacity over the A320neo. The 753 and 752 share the same fuel capacity. A A321neo with zero ACTs has less range than the A320neo. The large MTOW increases are so those ACTs are actually usable.

RJMAZ wrote:

Wrong numbers. The 757-300 was heavy.

What "wrong numbers"? ...you simply making that claim isn't going to exactly make it factual.

RJMAZ wrote:

Range DECREASED by 15%

Since you pretended not to notice previous time I asked this question (referencing an A310NEO), I'll ask it again in reference here: What customers were demanding equivalent/more range in a 757 stretch?

RJMAZ wrote:

A321NEO Vs A320NEO OEW increased by 13%. MTOW by 22%. Cabin area increased by 25%. Range increased by 14%.

All fair and dandy, but not as relevant to what was stated. The CEO comparison was used for a reason, as comparable tech/data for such a stretch existed in the same period for both.

RJMAZ wrote:

But the A321 clearly wins as it did not sacrifice range in the process.

RJMAZ wrote:

Yet the A321 gained range with no extra OEW increase.

You keep saying that, while at no point acknowledging that the only reason it gained range, is because the OEM added supplementary tankage to it. Take out the ACTs, and the A321 goes back to barely being able to do PHL-LAX reliably.

If Boeing had put 2-3 rear center tanks into a 753 (which it could easily accommodate due to its sheer length) then the 753's range would've been drastically different.

But again-- who actually WANTED that?

LAX772LR wrote:

If Boeing had put 2-3 rear center tanks into a 753 (which it could easily accommodate due to its sheer length) then the 753's range would've been drastically different.

But again-- who actually WANTED that?

About the only one I could see would be Icelandair, and that's an airline with a high-water-mark of what, 30 757s of both lengths? I once heard from someone there that they would have gotten more 753s if they had ~500 (don't remember if it was nmi, km, sm, so treat it as 500 semi-arbitrary units) more range.

But you've captured the essential problem of threads like this: questioning business decisions based on conditions that exist decades after the decisions were made. At no time when the 300/310 was still in production was there demand for what an additional update of that plane would have done, and people seem to forget that early 330s were much shorter-range than how the plane is used today - by over 2000 nmi in the 333's case, giving it almost exactly the same range as an A300-600. It was much more an A300NG originally than now.

And the real answer to "why wasn't there an A300NEO" is pretty simple: there was. That, among other things, is what an A300-600 is. It moved from 1970s engine technology to 1980s engines.

IADCA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

If Boeing had put 2-3 rear center tanks into a 753 (which it could easily accommodate due to its sheer length) then the 753's range would've been drastically different.

But again-- who actually WANTED that?

About the only one I could see would be Icelandair, and that's an airline with a high-water-mark of what, 30 757s of both lengths? I once heard from someone there that they would have gotten more 753s if they had ~500 (don't remember if it was nmi, km, sm, so treat it as 500 semi-arbitrary unites) more range.

But you've captured the essential problem of threads like this: questioning business decisions based on conditions that exist decades after the decisions were made. At no time when the 300/310 was still in production was there demand for what an update of that plane would have done, and people seem to forget that early 330s were much shorter-range than how the plane is used today - by over 2000 nmi in the 333's case, giving it almost exactly the same range as an A300-600. It was much more an A300NG originally than now.

And in the case of the 753 in the late 90s everyone interested in that size/range area had relatively new 767 fleets (or brand new A330s) that they were not going to get rid of anytime soon.

There is demand now (albeit questionable about how big) because airlines need to replace those 767s.

IADCA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

If Boeing had put 2-3 rear center tanks into a 753 (which it could easily accommodate due to its sheer length) then the 753's range would've been drastically different.
But again-- who actually WANTED that?

About the only one I could see would be Icelandair, and that's an airline with a high-water-mark of what, 30 757s of both lengths? I once heard from someone there that they would have gotten more 753s if they had ~500 (don't remember if it was nmi, km, sm, so treat it as 500 semi-arbitrary units) more range.

Indeed, which is why I should take it a step farther and clarify: who actually wanted to PAY for that?

Because the OEMs have proven time and again, that they'll bring a low production-volume variant to fruition, if a customer or small group of customers are willing dish out the cash:
DC10-15, 764ER, A359ULR, etc etc

IADCA wrote:

But you've captured the essential problem of threads like this: questioning business decisions based on conditions that exist decades after the decisions were made. At no time when the 300/310 was still in production was there demand for what an additional update of that plane would have done, and people seem to forget that early 330s were much shorter-range than how the plane is used today - by over 2000 nmi in the 333's case, giving it almost exactly the same range as an A300-600. It was much more an A300NG originally than now.

It shows quite a bit of flexibility on the behalf of Airbus. Planes they designed for one purpose have ended up doing far more than originally planned.

I think it’s worth remembering that when it comes to the a330, the launch customer was Air Inter…an airline that flew majority domestic around France, and some limited flights to Spain, the UK, and North Africa. It may have only been 4 or 5 frames, but it shows what some airlines wanted out of the early build 330s.

I've no insight into this but wasn't there the idea at Airbus after the A320 that all new models should be FBW, for various reasons including ease of transition for pilots ?

So any A300Neo would rather have been an A330 shrink ?

The thing that an A310neo would bring is the wide body lower capacity plane airlines like Delta are looking for. Am I saying it would be a cash cow for Airbus? Most likely not. However because there is no MoM yet to truely replace the 767 or 757-300. It would most likely sell good for the airlines that needed it. There just no whispers at all of such an aircraft on the horizon. Which can really hurt both plane makers in the future cause airlines have to find something sooner then they can be ready.

Aesma wrote:

I've no insight into this but wasn't there the idea at Airbus after the A320 that all new models should be FBW, for various reasons including ease of transition for pilots ?

So any A300Neo would rather have been an A330 shrink ?

The A300 had a smaller and lighter wing and landing gear. An updated A300 would really have been a variant of the A330 with lower weight. A simple shrink of the A330-200 would have had the same kinds of excess weight issues as the 737-600 compared to the 737-500.

Polot wrote:

A321neo range increases is purely because of ACTs giving the A321 additional fuel capacity over the A320neo. The 753 and 752 share the same fuel capacity. A A321neo with zero ACTs has less range than the A320neo. The large MTOW increases are so those ACTs are actually usable.

No, the A321NEO range increase is purely because of the MTOW increase. You cant add more fuel if the takeoff weight doesn't allow for it.

The use of ACTs is irrelevant to the discussion if an aircraft is overweight or not. Adding ACT's to the A320 or 757-300 would not increase range as they are MTOW limited.

The A321NEO gained a huge MTOW increase with no effective weight penalty when compared to the 757-300. The A321NEO is by far the best stretch in history. So much extra MTOW and cabin area for such a small empty weight increase.

The early build original A321CEO models had a MTOW below 90t. Just like the 757-300 it sacrificed range and sold poorly. Both were a poor stretch and were heavy. Airbus fully optimised it and reduced the empty weight significantly as a proportion of the maximum weight. Then it started to sell well and they optimised it even further with the A321XLR.

LAX772LR wrote:

You keep saying that, while at no point acknowledging that the only reason it gained range, is because the OEM added supplementary tankage to it.

Totally wrong. The A350-900 gained around 1000nm of range because the MTOW went from 268t to 280t. Likewise with the A330NEO family went from 242t to 251t and the A350-1000 from 308t to 319t. All gained significant range without any increase in fuel tankage.

The MTOW increase allowed the existing tankage to be filled to a higher level at any given payload rate.

The 777-200LR is another example gaining 1,500nm.of range over the 777-200ER with close to no increase in tankage.

LAX772LR wrote:

If Boeing had put 2-3 rear center tanks into a 753 (which it could easily accommodate due to its sheer length) then the 753's range would've been drastically different.

But again-- who actually WANTED that?

Wrong again. If they put extra tanks in the 757-300 they would have had to remove passengers as it's all about the MTOW. With the internal fuel capacity of 34,720kg or 43,400liters the 757-300 has a payload of only 24,770kg before hitting MTOW. So 240 passengers.

Putting 3 filled center fuel tanks in the 757-300 it would have only only been able to carry 100 passengers before hitting MTOW. You are right no one wanted that.

The 757-300 exceeded the length limit for a weight optimised 6AB cross section. Too much empty weight had to be allocated to stopping the long skinny fuselage from bending. Where as the A321 could allocate the empty weight increase towards increasing MTOW instead.

It might have to do with how stretch variants of a model usually lead to gain in fuel efficiency. Like B777 and B777X. They don't just update B777 with new engines, they stretched the fuselage so it could carry more passengers (more passengers equals less fuel burn per passengers) and fitted in bigger and more capable engines+wings for better performance and payload capabilities.
Updating the engines alone wouldn't be sufficient to provide significant gain in fuel efficiency. So Airlines wouldn't be swayed to buy NEO aircraft if the fuel savings only came at 5%-7% at most.

A330-200 and A330-300 sells like a hot cake though, so clearly Airlines wanted larger capacity from the updated model.


Although I agree, the next Airbus aircraft needed to be an 8-abreast aircraft between the size of A310, A300-600 and A330-200. They would be able to fill the MoM with that perfectly.

The A300-600, especially the longer-range 600R variant, was the "A300NEO" of its day. It incorporated the 2-crew flight deck & empennage from the A310, a glass cockpit and aerodynamic tweaks that extended its range from A300-B4's 2,900 nm, to slightly over 4,000 nm for the 600R variant.

https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data ... 300-600/18

American Airlines was the first major customer for the 600R, ordering 35 and started taking deliveries of the type in the late-1980's. AA used them mostly for flights from JFK and MIA to various Caribbean, Central American and South American cities. AA also used the 600R on routes from their East Coast cities to Ireland, UK and Western Europe. FedEx and UPS both bought new, large fleets of the freighter version of the 600R, with FedEx taking the last A300F4-600R manufactured in July 2007.

ewt340 wrote:

Updating the engines alone wouldn't be sufficient to provide significant gain in fuel efficiency.

Actually I think the reason why they stretch an aircraft once it gets new engines it to bring the aircraft back into the sweet spot.

For example the 777-200ER and 777-300 both entered service at the same time and both had a MTOW just under 300t. The shorter 200ER outsold 422 vs 60. Airlines must not have wanted a widebody with only 6,000nm that the 777-300 had.

10 years later the 777-200LR and 777-300ER entered service with wingtips, new engines and a MTOW now around 350t. All of the suddenly the sales were reversed. The longer 300ER outsold 829 to 61. Airlines did not want an aircraft with 8,555nm that the 777LR. The 7,370nm range of the 777-300ER was in the sweet spot.

The 777-8 had to get the largest stretch as the 777LR sold so poorly.

ewt340 wrote:

A330-200 and A330-300 sells like a hot cake though, so clearly Airlines wanted larger capacity from the updated model.

These are another good example. The A330-200 massively outsold the A330-300 at the start as the A330-300 initially had a range below 6,000nm. Once they got MTOW increases and an engine PIP the sales switching the other way.

Airlines clearly want optimised widebody aircraft with a range between 6,500nm and 7,500nm. This might be linked to Pacific routes

Slightly off topic but the A350 is already well beyond the range capability of what airlines traditionally demanded. When they get new engines they will both have a range over 9,000nm. Unless ultra long haul becomes popular their sales might reduce. Some suggestions I have seen are to make the A350-1000 with the lower 280t MTOW to save a bit of weight and bring it into the sweet spot.

Many members on here predict the 787-10 will be selling extremely well once engines improve as it will be the only widebody left in the sweet spot. It only has a range of 6,430nm now but with improved engines it should get up to 7,000nm

RJMAZ wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

You keep saying that, while at no point acknowledging that the only reason it gained range, is because the OEM added supplementary tankage to it.

Totally wrong. The A350-900 gained around 1000nm of range because the MTOW went from 268t to 280t. Likewise with the A330NEO family went from 242t to 251t and the A350-1000 from 308t to 319t. All gained significant range without any increase in fuel tankage.

The MTOW increase allowed the existing tankage to be filled to a higher level at any given payload rate.

The 777-200LR is another example gaining 1,500nm.of range over the 777-200ER with close to no increase in tankage.

Kindly remind us what on earth any of that has to do with the A320CEO to A321CEO, which was the actual topic being quoted?

Because at this point, you're just prattling nonsense with no regard to the actual sibject being discussed.

RJMAZ wrote:

Wrong again. If they put extra tanks in the 757-300 they would have had to remove passengers as it's all about the MTOW. With the internal fuel capacity of 34,720kg or 43,400liters the 757-300 has a payload of only 24,770kg before hitting MTOW. So 240 passengers.

I'm curious as to why you assume that the then-assigned MTOW was a hard limit for the airframe, when nothing from Boeing indicated that to be fact.......

LAX772LR wrote:

Kindly remind us what on earth any of that has to do with the A320CEO to A321CEO, which was the actual topic being quoted?

It shows that range is only linked to MTOW. The entire cabin could be a fuel tank but it can't be filled.

The A321NEO is a superior stretch over the A320NEO compared to the 757-200 going to 757-300. Both families gained empty weight due to the stretch but the A321NEO gained range due to massive MTOW increase. This MTOW increase came with no penalty due to superior engineering.

In other words the 757-300 is heavy and a poor stretch.

LAX772LR wrote:

I'm curious as to why you assume that the then-assigned MTOW was a hard limit for the airframe, when nothing from Boeing indicated that to be fact.......

Are you suggesting Boeing intentionally limited the MTOW on purpose? Reducing payload/range and sales potential? So they could have just increased the MTOW on paper and gained free performance?

RJMAZ wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Kindly remind us what on earth any of that has to do with the A320CEO to A321CEO, which was the actual topic being quoted?

It shows that range is only linked to MTOW. The entire cabin could be a fuel tank but it can't be filled.

The A321NEO is a superior stretch over the A320NEO compared to the 757-200 going to 757-300. Both families gained empty weight due to the stretch but the A321NEO gained range due to massive MTOW increase. This MTOW increase came with no penalty due to superior engineering.

In other words the 757-300 is heavy and a poor stretch.

No, it does not show that.

No, the comparsion was not to the A321NEO, it was the (actually relevant at the time) stretch of the A320CEO to the A321CEO.

And no, nothing in that ADD-laden grabbag of irrelevant babbling demonstrates that "the 757-300 is heavy and a poor stretch."

LAX772LR wrote:

Are you suggesting Boeing intentionally limited the MTOW on purpose?

You *R*E*A*L*L*Y* need to start paying attention to what was actually said, before responding. Like, seriously.

AGAIN, the question was, why do you assume the given MTOW to have been a limit in the first place.

The A310 wing, misjudged market and a missed opportunity.
I want to again call focus on the strategic missed opportunity for Airbus in the product placement of the A310 (and A300) and the subsequent sizing of the A310’s updated wing. At the time of the A310’s development in the late 70’s, Airbus was a much less coherent consortium of opportunistic companies and countries. Strategic (product) planning was not as centralised and free of as much local opportunism as it is today. In that setting I suspect they misjudged the market direction the A310 was eventually going to take (transatlantic). It was mainly intended for (EU) regional operations. The planned 2.000 nm A310-100 was not even produced because of lack of demand, but it did influence the sizing of the A310 wing. This left it with an induced drag penalty for transatlantic missions the A310 was eventually used flying. In 1985 this was somewhat corrected by adding winglet’s to reduced its induced drag. This was also one of the key benefit’s the 767 had. It had a wing larger enough to successfully grow into it’s new medium haul role.

Ten years after the A300 launched in the late 60's, they updated the A300 wing from 44,8m/260m2/7.7 AR to a much more advanced 43,9m/219m2/8.8 AR one for the A310. Had they better foreseen the A310 future they probably would've dimensioned the A310 updated wing to something like this: 46,5m/250m2/8.8 AR. Such a wing would have given the A300 a significant efficiency and capability boost as well:

46,5m/250m2/8.8 AR vs:
A310 wing: ~-2% cruise drag.
A300 wing: ~-4.5% cruise drag. (this even without the aero improvements the A310 got).


Pathway to a A300/A310"NEO"
This is important because for further updating the A310/A300 in the 90’s, Airbus would not only have to integrate new engines, but more expensively, design a whole new wing as well. That did not help the business case for a A300/A310”NEO”. Had they better judged the future A310 market and dimensioned the A310’s updated wing accordingly, both the A310 and A300 would already have had the proper wing to work from for the NEO making a possible “NEO” much cheaper to realize.

A 173t A330-100 was proposed, but it was still using the old 44,8m wing so was never going be on the cutting edge of efficiency. This was later changed to the A330-500 with the much more advanced 60,3m wing of the other A330’s, but obviously, this was too heavy for its intended purpose. Both proposals being based on existing wings indicating Airbus didn’t want to go through the expense of having to design a whole new wing for their medium haul update and a better existing wing as proposed above was sorely being missed in closing the business case.


Conclusion.
In my opinion the lack of a more future and A300 proof dimensioned wing update for the A310 in the late 70's, was the key mistake/requirement that prevented any economically viable mayor engine updates to the A300-600R and the A310 in the 90's. Airbus had a very well judged 8-abreast cross section, which we still see ordered today in it’s heavier incarnation, but it did squander quite some “thin-and-long” opportunities for it’s lighter version.

Taxi645 wrote:

The A310 wing, misjudged market and a missed opportunity.
I want to again call focus on the strategic missed opportunity for Airbus in the product placement of the A310 (and A300) and the subsequent sizing of the A310’s updated wing. At the time of the A310’s development in the late 70’s, Airbus was a much less coherent consortium of opportunistic companies and countries. Strategic (product) planning was not as centralised and free of as much local opportunism as it is today. In that setting I suspect they misjudged the market direction the A310 was eventually going to take (transatlantic). It was mainly intended for (EU) regional operations. The planned 2.000 nm A310-100 was not even produced because of lack of demand, but it did influence the sizing of the A310 wing. This left it with an induced drag penalty for transatlantic missions the A310 was eventually used flying. In 1985 this was somewhat corrected by adding winglet’s to reduced its induced drag. This was also one of the key benefit’s the 767 had. It had a wing larger enough to successfully grow into it’s new medium haul role.

Ten years after the A300 launched in the late 60's, they updated the A300 wing from 44,8m/260m2/7.7 AR to a much more advanced 43,9m/219m2/8.8 AR one for the A310. Had they better foreseen the A310 future they probably would've dimensioned the A310 updated wing to something like this: 46,5m/250m2/8.8 AR. Such a wing would have given the A300 a significant efficiency and capability boost as well:

46,5m/250m2/8.8 AR vs:
A310 wing: ~-2% cruise drag.
A300 wing: ~-4.5% cruise drag. (this even without the aero improvements the A310 got).


Pathway to a A300/A310"NEO"
This is important because for further updating the A310/A300 in the 90’s, Airbus would not only have to integrate new engines, but more expensively, design a whole new wing as well. That did not help the business case for a A300/A310”NEO”. Had they better judged the future A310 market and dimensioned the A310’s updated wing accordingly, both the A310 and A300 would already have had the proper wing to work from for the NEO making a possible “NEO” much cheaper to realize.

A 173t A330-100 was proposed, but it was still using the old 44,8m wing so was never going be on the cutting edge of efficiency. This was later changed to the A330-500 with the much more advanced 60,3m wing of the other A330’s, but obviously, this was too heavy for its intended purpose. Both proposals being based on existing wings indicating Airbus didn’t want to go through the expense of having to design a whole new wing for their medium haul update and a better existing wing as proposed above was sorely being missed in closing the business case.


Conclusion.
In my opinion the lack of a more future and A300 proof dimensioned wing update for the A310 in the late 70's, was the key mistake/requirement that prevented any economically viable mayor engine updates to the A300-600R and the A310 in the 90's. Airbus had a very well judged 8-abreast cross section, which we still see ordered today in it’s heavier incarnation, but it did squander quite some “thin-and-long” opportunities for it’s lighter version.

IMO, the wing of the A310 did well. The wing was sized to the size of the frame. The drag of a wing depends not only on the AR, but also on other design factors, like for example the profile. That was for the A310 a supercritical profile, reducing drag.
If we look at sales numbers we see that the 767-200, the same sized competition from Boeing, managed nearly identical sales numbers. 249 against 255.

Going to the A300, it had a good run for many years, 561 frames sold was quite a success. You can not compare sales numbers at that time with sales numbers today. Boeing delivered 893 767-300 up to now, over a far longer production run.
The A300 was replaced in the nineties by the A330, that not only had bigger wings, sized for a 275t max MTOW of the A340-200/300, but is all over a bigger frame.
While Boeing struggled on with first the 767-300 and than the 767-400, the A330 became the best selling midsized wide body.

My conclusion is, that Airbus did very well with the A300, A310 and than A330. The A300 is the pioneer of the twin engine wide bodies. The A330 was the result of airlines wanting to buy bigger frames that the A310 and A300.
At that time Airbus was a small producer of aircraft finding it's feet. Going up against the might of three major USA aircraft producers.

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO, the wing of the A310 did well. The wing was sized to the size of the frame. The drag of a wing depends not only on the AR, but also on other design factors, like for example the profile. That was for the A310 a supercritical profile, reducing drag.

The latter I already alluded to in my post.

I disagree it was well sized for the A310. The point I made was that Airbus 10 years after the A300 updated the wing to something much more advanced and a cutting edge aspect ratio and then mostly dimensioned for a market that mostly wasn't there (see the cancelling of the A310-100 as said). Had they taken that very advanced design and dimensioned it to be better suited also for the A300 and for the market the A310 was eventually used for, both would've had even more success and critically they would already have had the perfect wing to work from for a 90's engine update. Since they lacked that, no business case could be closed.

mjoelnir wrote:

If we look at sales numbers we see that the 767-200, the same sized competition from Boeing, managed nearly identical sales numbers. 249 against 255.

Going to the A300, it had a good run for many years, 561 frames sold was quite a success. You can not compare sales numbers at that time with sales numbers today. Boeing delivered 893 767-300 up to now, over a far longer production run.

No need to get defensive. I never said the A310 or A300 did bad, I merely explained how a differently sized wing for the A310, would've benefited both models and would've been the key to closing the business case for a "NEO" version.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A300 was replaced in the nineties by the A330, that not only had bigger wings, sized for a 275t max MTOW of the A340-200/300, but is all over a bigger frame.
While Boeing struggled on with first the 767-300 and than the 767-400, the A330 became the best selling midsized wide body.

My conclusion is, that Airbus did very well with the A300, A310 and than A330. The A300 is the pioneer of the twin engine wide bodies. The A330 was the result of airlines wanting to buy bigger frames that the A310 and A300.

Airbus did remarkably well with their 8-abreast cross section family of aircraft. Like the A320 cross section, it was excellently chosen. I'm no so sure however if there wouldn't have been a place below the A330, for a 173t A300 (as said Airbus was exactly trying to proposing something for this market from their existing parts bin with the A330-100 and A330-500, but did not find a suitable wing). With new engines and further wing end work to get to a 48-50m wing, it would have had both the efficiency and range to do long(ish)-and-thin routes with a comfortable and efficient 8-abreast fuselage.

mjoelnir wrote:

At that time Airbus was a small producer of aircraft finding it's feet. Going up against the might of three major USA aircraft producers.

And did so very successfully, no disagreement at all there. The sizing of the A310 wing was just one of the symptoms of it indeed still being in it's infancy.

Taxi645 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO, the wing of the A310 did well. The wing was sized to the size of the frame. The drag of a wing depends not only on the AR, but also on other design factors, like for example the profile. That was for the A310 a supercritical profile, reducing drag.

The latter I already alluded to in my post.

I disagree it was well sized for the A310. The point I made was that Airbus 10 years after the A300 updated the wing to something much more advanced and a cutting edge aspect ratio and then mostly dimensioned for a market that mostly wasn't there (see the cancelling of the A310-100 as said). Had they taken that very advanced design and dimensioned it to be better suited also for the A300 and for the market the A310 was eventually used for, both would've had even more success and critically they would already have had the perfect wing to work from for a 90's engine update. Since they lacked that, no business case could be closed.

mjoelnir wrote:

If we look at sales numbers we see that the 767-200, the same sized competition from Boeing, managed nearly identical sales numbers. 249 against 255.

Going to the A300, it had a good run for many years, 561 frames sold was quite a success. You can not compare sales numbers at that time with sales numbers today. Boeing delivered 893 767-300 up to now, over a far longer production run.

No need to get defensive. I never said the A310 or A300 did bad, I merely explained how a differently sized wing for the A310, would've benefited both models and would've been the key to closing the business case for a "NEO" version.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A300 was replaced in the nineties by the A330, that not only had bigger wings, sized for a 275t max MTOW of the A340-200/300, but is all over a bigger frame.
While Boeing struggled on with first the 767-300 and than the 767-400, the A330 became the best selling midsized wide body.

My conclusion is, that Airbus did very well with the A300, A310 and than A330. The A300 is the pioneer of the twin engine wide bodies. The A330 was the result of airlines wanting to buy bigger frames that the A310 and A300.

Airbus did remarkably well with their 8-abreast cross section family of aircraft. Like the A320 cross section, it was excellently chosen. I'm no so sure however if there wouldn't have been a place below the A330, for a 173t A300 (as said Airbus was exactly trying to proposing something for this market from their existing parts bin with the A330-100 and A330-500, but did not find a suitable wing). With new engines and further wing end work to get to a 48-50m wing, it would have had both the efficiency and range to do long(ish)-and-thin routes with a comfortable and efficient 8-abreast fuselage.

mjoelnir wrote:

At that time Airbus was a small producer of aircraft finding it's feet. Going up against the might of three major USA aircraft producers.

And did so very successfully, no disagreement at all there. The sizing of the A310 wing was just one of the symptoms of it indeed still being in it's infancy.

I disagree with you, quite a bit. The bigger wing of the 767-200 did not help the 767-200 to make more sales, even with the advantage of being by the established player in the field.

The wing of the A300 was never the same size as the A310 wing. So the size of the A310 wing is completely irrelevant to the size of the A300 wing. We could discuss if the A300 would have needed a bigger wing. But we should also look at the time of the design of the A300 wing, other frames like the DC10 and Lockheed Tristar had rather small wing spans for the size and MTOW of those frames compared to today.
The influence of the A310 wing on the A300 wing we can see on the A300-600, with the attention to the detail changes, that I do not want to enumerate here.
The next iteration, the A330, did get the big wing, a bonus as a passenger frame, but seems to be malus against the DC10 and 767 freighters.

I do not see any limitation by the wing of both the A310 and A300 to their success in regarding sales. They were replaced by the A330 because airlines wanted bigger frames as wide bodies.
The aircraft producers go to the airlines with design ideas, I am sure that Airbus has talked with airlines about several iterations of new A300 sized designs. If enough airlines would have asked about such a bird, I am sur Airbus would have provided it.

mjoelnir wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO, the wing of the A310 did well. The wing was sized to the size of the frame. The drag of a wing depends not only on the AR, but also on other design factors, like for example the profile. That was for the A310 a supercritical profile, reducing drag.

The latter I already alluded to in my post.

I disagree it was well sized for the A310. The point I made was that Airbus 10 years after the A300 updated the wing to something much more advanced and a cutting edge aspect ratio and then mostly dimensioned for a market that mostly wasn't there (see the cancelling of the A310-100 as said). Had they taken that very advanced design and dimensioned it to be better suited also for the A300 and for the market the A310 was eventually used for, both would've had even more success and critically they would already have had the perfect wing to work from for a 90's engine update. Since they lacked that, no business case could be closed.

mjoelnir wrote:

If we look at sales numbers we see that the 767-200, the same sized competition from Boeing, managed nearly identical sales numbers. 249 against 255.

Going to the A300, it had a good run for many years, 561 frames sold was quite a success. You can not compare sales numbers at that time with sales numbers today. Boeing delivered 893 767-300 up to now, over a far longer production run.

No need to get defensive. I never said the A310 or A300 did bad, I merely explained how a differently sized wing for the A310, would've benefited both models and would've been the key to closing the business case for a "NEO" version.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A300 was replaced in the nineties by the A330, that not only had bigger wings, sized for a 275t max MTOW of the A340-200/300, but is all over a bigger frame.
While Boeing struggled on with first the 767-300 and than the 767-400, the A330 became the best selling midsized wide body.

My conclusion is, that Airbus did very well with the A300, A310 and than A330. The A300 is the pioneer of the twin engine wide bodies. The A330 was the result of airlines wanting to buy bigger frames that the A310 and A300.

Airbus did remarkably well with their 8-abreast cross section family of aircraft. Like the A320 cross section, it was excellently chosen. I'm no so sure however if there wouldn't have been a place below the A330, for a 173t A300 (as said Airbus was exactly trying to proposing something for this market from their existing parts bin with the A330-100 and A330-500, but did not find a suitable wing). With new engines and further wing end work to get to a 48-50m wing, it would have had both the efficiency and range to do long(ish)-and-thin routes with a comfortable and efficient 8-abreast fuselage.

mjoelnir wrote:

At that time Airbus was a small producer of aircraft finding it's feet. Going up against the might of three major USA aircraft producers.

And did so very successfully, no disagreement at all there. The sizing of the A310 wing was just one of the symptoms of it indeed still being in it's infancy.

I disagree with you, quite a bit. The bigger wing of the 767-200 did not help the 767-200 to make more sales, even with the advantage of being by the established player in the field.

The bigger wing didn’t help the 762 because it allowed for the 763ER, which of course had the range many airlines were interested in a larger more economical package. That is what Taxi645 was alluding too. With a bigger A310 wing they could have placed that same more advanced wing on the A300 and given it range competitive to the 763ER. A310 sales would still be bad (probably worse) but A300 sales much better. The 763ER alone outsold the entire A300 line (all pax and freighter variants), and that is before you add in the 763A and 763ERF.

Airlines were primarily buying the A310 and 762ER for its range, not it’s size (with the 762ER available some 4 years earlier than the 763ER). That’s why Delta, for example, replaced their rather new A310s with 763ERs and not 762ERs. KLM is another good example.

They were replaced by the A330 because airlines wanted bigger frames as wide bodies.

Tbh they were replaced by the A330 because Airbus wanted/needed a larger frame to replace aging DC-10/L-1011s and compete against the then upcoming MD-11, and couldn’t close the business case to create a new A300 sized frame after.

Why was there no A300Neo/A310Neo?

Same reason there is no "767MAX" : business strategy.
In a BCG matrix, Airbus star product in the 90's was the new and more capable A330/340 family in which they were investing massivelly. Upgrading the A300/310 "cash cows" at the time would have meant more investment to developpe it in a question mark overlapping a lot the new star product.

The way to secure the best return on investment rate for Airbus was to push the A330/340 in the market everywhere a widebody was needed, offer their other star, the more efficient A320 for short range while keep selling the A300/310 has long as it remained profitable.

For exemple, Dassault went even further but with less succes until recently, with the Rafale and Mirage 2000. In order to promote the Rafale, they fully stoped offering the well selling M2000.

There are 2 considerations:
1) what is technically achievable and,
2) what is commercially necessary (demand exists).

The thread seems to have devolved into discussions of what might be technically possible while ignoring the fact that there was no demand for the type. Had demand existed, a plane could have been configured.

mjoelnir wrote:

I disagree with you, quite a bit. The bigger wing of the 767-200 did not help the 767-200 to make more sales, even with the advantage of being by the established player in the field.

The wing of the A300 was never the same size as the A310 wing. So the size of the A310 wing is completely irrelevant to the size of the A300 wing. We could discuss if the A300 would have needed a bigger wing. But we should also look at the time of the design of the A300 wing, other frames like the DC10 and Lockheed Tristar had rather small wing spans for the size and MTOW of those frames compared to today.
The influence of the A310 wing on the A300 wing we can see on the A300-600, with the attention to the detail changes, that I do not want to enumerate here.
The next iteration, the A330, did get the big wing, a bonus as a passenger frame, but seems to be malus against the DC10 and 767 freighters.

I must admit that sometimes discussing with you can be a bit of a frustrating experience since you're so strongly defending what is/was, that you fail to understand the point the other person is making. It never WAS the same size, but the whole point of my post was that is SHOULD have been the same size when they launched the updated wing for the A310. You are completely right that the A300 wing was perfectly adequate when the A300 was launched. What I'm saying is they should've taken the opportunity of doing much more advanced one for the A310 ten years later, to make a single advanced wing for them both in stead of optimizing the A310 wing for a regional role which it turned out, was no demand for. Airbus in the end ended up with 2 set of wings designs (as you know one of the most expensive parts in R&D) for two airliners a mere 7.7t or 5% apart. That is an extraordinary waist of resources.

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not see any limitation by the wing of both the A310 and A300 to their success in regarding sales. They were replaced by the A330 because airlines wanted bigger frames as wide bodies.
The aircraft producers go to the airlines with design ideas, I am sure that Airbus has talked with airlines about several iterations of new A300 sized designs. If enough airlines would have asked about such a bird, I am sur Airbus would have provided it.

There were airlines asking for such a plane, otherwise Airbus would not have been toying around with the A330-100 and A330-500 concepts. There is the potential demand from the market (even if not everyone sees all the opportunities straight away) and then there is the manufacturers ability to fulfil that demand in an economically viable fashion (a.i. with a low enough development cost to keep the purchase price attractive enough for the airlines to fulfil that demand). Airbus in the 90's had a few wing options to do so (and as said actually considered some of them):

Based on:
- The A310 wing: too small to fulfil the capability and efficiency demand
- The A300 wing: 60's technology and also too small fulfil the capability and efficiency demand
- The A330 wing: Too heavy for the intended market and also leading to gate restrictions.
- A completely new wing: Too expensive to develop to be able to offer any updated design with a low enough price against competition which was well established by then and did have the right wing already.

In the 90's Airbus was exactly missing that, an existing wing of the right size for that market and sufficiently modern to function as a basis to further work from. That's exactly what a larger A310 wing for both the A310 and A300 would have provided.

So to say there was no demand from the airlines when Airbus was publicly floating around the A330-100 and 500 concepts is completely inaccurate in my view. There was, just no demand based on a purchase price that would've allowed the development of a completely new wing and make a profit against existing competition.

Was there ever a plan in the 1990s to offer the A320/A330/A340 systems (avionics, cockpit, etc.) on the A300/A310?

stratable wrote:

Was there ever a plan in the 1990s to offer the A320/A330/A340 systems (avionics, cockpit, etc.) on the A300/A310?

No, they would have basically had to redesign the entire aircraft. As Taxi645 noted Airbus did float possible A330 shrinks to replace the A300 but they never got traction.

Polot wrote:

stratable wrote:

Was there ever a plan in the 1990s to offer the A320/A330/A340 systems (avionics, cockpit, etc.) on the A300/A310?

No, they would have basically had to redesign the entire aircraft. As Taxi645 noted Airbus did float possible A330 shrinks to replace the A300 but they never got traction.

Thanks for the input.
Always thought that a 1990s A310 with a slightly upped MTOW (170 tons maybe?), the A330's avionics and maybe an uprated PW2000 would have been an attractive plane.
Guess there was just no business case overall. I'd assume it's kinda like going from the 737NG to the MAX.

NEO means New Engine Option and unfortunately there is no truly modern engine in this class.

Taxi645 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I disagree with you, quite a bit. The bigger wing of the 767-200 did not help the 767-200 to make more sales, even with the advantage of being by the established player in the field.

The wing of the A300 was never the same size as the A310 wing. So the size of the A310 wing is completely irrelevant to the size of the A300 wing. We could discuss if the A300 would have needed a bigger wing. But we should also look at the time of the design of the A300 wing, other frames like the DC10 and Lockheed Tristar had rather small wing spans for the size and MTOW of those frames compared to today.
The influence of the A310 wing on the A300 wing we can see on the A300-600, with the attention to the detail changes, that I do not want to enumerate here.
The next iteration, the A330, did get the big wing, a bonus as a passenger frame, but seems to be malus against the DC10 and 767 freighters.

I must admit that sometimes discussing with you can be a bit of a frustrating experience since you're so strongly defending what is/was, that you fail to understand the point the other person is making. It never WAS the same size, but the whole point of my post was that is SHOULD have been the same size when they launched the updated wing for the A310. You are completely right that the A300 wing was perfectly adequate when the A300 was launched. What I'm saying is they should've taken the opportunity of doing much more advanced one for the A310 ten years later, to make a single advanced wing for them both in stead of optimizing the A310 wing for a regional role which it turned out, was no demand for. Airbus in the end ended up with 2 set of wings designs (as you know one of the most expensive parts in R&D) for two airliners a mere 7.7t or 5% apart. That is an extraordinary waist of resources.

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not see any limitation by the wing of both the A310 and A300 to their success in regarding sales. They were replaced by the A330 because airlines wanted bigger frames as wide bodies.
The aircraft producers go to the airlines with design ideas, I am sure that Airbus has talked with airlines about several iterations of new A300 sized designs. If enough airlines would have asked about such a bird, I am sur Airbus would have provided it.

There were airlines asking for such a plane, otherwise Airbus would not have been toying around with the A330-100 and A330-500 concepts. There is the potential demand from the market (even if not everyone sees all the opportunities straight away) and then there is the manufacturers ability to fulfil that demand in an economically viable fashion (a.i. with a low enough development cost to keep the purchase price attractive enough for the airlines to fulfil that demand). Airbus in the 90's had a few wing options to do so (and as said actually considered some of them):

Based on:
- The A310 wing: too small to fulfil the capability and efficiency demand
- The A300 wing: 60's technology and also too small fulfil the capability and efficiency demand
- The A330 wing: Too heavy for the intended market and also leading to gate restrictions.
- A completely new wing: Too expensive to develop to be able to offer any updated design with a low enough price against competition which was well established by then and did have the right wing already.

In the 90's Airbus was exactly missing that, an existing wing of the right size for that market and sufficiently modern to function as a basis to further work from. That's exactly what a larger A310 wing for both the A310 and A300 would have provided.

So to say there was no demand from the airlines when Airbus was publicly floating around the A330-100 and 500 concepts is completely inaccurate in my view. There was, just no demand based on a purchase price that would've allowed the development of a completely new wing and make a profit against existing competition.

Again the A310 wing was sized for the A310, nothing else.
The A300 wing was sized for the A300, upgraded for the A300-600.
and the A330 wing was sized for the A340. There I could agree, that the A330 could probable have done with a smaller lighter wing at that time.
But the big wing, was the base for the expansion of the capabilities of the A330 during the years, ending with a still larger wingspan for the A330neo.

The A330-100 was supposed to have a smaller wing than the A330-200/300, at that time the redesigned A300 wing, but I am pretty sure that if offering another wingspan, say slightly below 52 meters would have closed the deal, Airbus would have done it. There were just no takers for that size of frame.

The main point is in this discussion, that I disagree with you premises and conclusions. Perhaps that is frustrating for you, but people have different opinions.

mjoelnir wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I disagree with you, quite a bit. The bigger wing of the 767-200 did not help the 767-200 to make more sales, even with the advantage of being by the established player in the field.

The wing of the A300 was never the same size as the A310 wing. So the size of the A310 wing is completely irrelevant to the size of the A300 wing. We could discuss if the A300 would have needed a bigger wing. But we should also look at the time of the design of the A300 wing, other frames like the DC10 and Lockheed Tristar had rather small wing spans for the size and MTOW of those frames compared to today.
The influence of the A310 wing on the A300 wing we can see on the A300-600, with the attention to the detail changes, that I do not want to enumerate here.
The next iteration, the A330, did get the big wing, a bonus as a passenger frame, but seems to be malus against the DC10 and 767 freighters.

I must admit that sometimes discussing with you can be a bit of a frustrating experience since you're so strongly defending what is/was, that you fail to understand the point the other person is making. It never WAS the same size, but the whole point of my post was that is SHOULD have been the same size when they launched the updated wing for the A310. You are completely right that the A300 wing was perfectly adequate when the A300 was launched. What I'm saying is they should've taken the opportunity of doing much more advanced one for the A310 ten years later, to make a single advanced wing for them both in stead of optimizing the A310 wing for a regional role which it turned out, was no demand for. Airbus in the end ended up with 2 set of wings designs (as you know one of the most expensive parts in R&D) for two airliners a mere 7.7t or 5% apart. That is an extraordinary waist of resources.

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not see any limitation by the wing of both the A310 and A300 to their success in regarding sales. They were replaced by the A330 because airlines wanted bigger frames as wide bodies.
The aircraft producers go to the airlines with design ideas, I am sure that Airbus has talked with airlines about several iterations of new A300 sized designs. If enough airlines would have asked about such a bird, I am sur Airbus would have provided it.

There were airlines asking for such a plane, otherwise Airbus would not have been toying around with the A330-100 and A330-500 concepts. There is the potential demand from the market (even if not everyone sees all the opportunities straight away) and then there is the manufacturers ability to fulfil that demand in an economically viable fashion (a.i. with a low enough development cost to keep the purchase price attractive enough for the airlines to fulfil that demand). Airbus in the 90's had a few wing options to do so (and as said actually considered some of them):

Based on:
- The A310 wing: too small to fulfil the capability and efficiency demand
- The A300 wing: 60's technology and also too small fulfil the capability and efficiency demand
- The A330 wing: Too heavy for the intended market and also leading to gate restrictions.
- A completely new wing: Too expensive to develop to be able to offer any updated design with a low enough price against competition which was well established by then and did have the right wing already.

In the 90's Airbus was exactly missing that, an existing wing of the right size for that market and sufficiently modern to function as a basis to further work from. That's exactly what a larger A310 wing for both the A310 and A300 would have provided.

So to say there was no demand from the airlines when Airbus was publicly floating around the A330-100 and 500 concepts is completely inaccurate in my view. There was, just no demand based on a purchase price that would've allowed the development of a completely new wing and make a profit against existing competition.

Again the A310 wing was sized for the A310, nothing else.
The A300 wing was sized for the A300, upgraded for the A300-600.
and the A330 wing was sized for the A340.

No one is disagreeing or disputing that. What Taxi645 is saying is that was a strategic mistake and Airbus, when developing the A310, should have sized the new wing to be suitable for the A300 too to create a rewinged A300. No one is debating what Airbus did, the debate is over what Airbus should have done.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

I must admit that sometimes discussing with you can be a bit of a frustrating experience since you're so strongly defending what is/was, that you fail to understand the point the other person is making. It never WAS the same size, but the whole point of my post was that is SHOULD have been the same size when they launched the updated wing for the A310. You are completely right that the A300 wing was perfectly adequate when the A300 was launched. What I'm saying is they should've taken the opportunity of doing much more advanced one for the A310 ten years later, to make a single advanced wing for them both in stead of optimizing the A310 wing for a regional role which it turned out, was no demand for. Airbus in the end ended up with 2 set of wings designs (as you know one of the most expensive parts in R&D) for two airliners a mere 7.7t or 5% apart. That is an extraordinary waist of resources.



There were airlines asking for such a plane, otherwise Airbus would not have been toying around with the A330-100 and A330-500 concepts. There is the potential demand from the market (even if not everyone sees all the opportunities straight away) and then there is the manufacturers ability to fulfil that demand in an economically viable fashion (a.i. with a low enough development cost to keep the purchase price attractive enough for the airlines to fulfil that demand). Airbus in the 90's had a few wing options to do so (and as said actually considered some of them):

Based on:
- The A310 wing: too small to fulfil the capability and efficiency demand
- The A300 wing: 60's technology and also too small fulfil the capability and efficiency demand
- The A330 wing: Too heavy for the intended market and also leading to gate restrictions.
- A completely new wing: Too expensive to develop to be able to offer any updated design with a low enough price against competition which was well established by then and did have the right wing already.

In the 90's Airbus was exactly missing that, an existing wing of the right size for that market and sufficiently modern to function as a basis to further work from. That's exactly what a larger A310 wing for both the A310 and A300 would have provided.

So to say there was no demand from the airlines when Airbus was publicly floating around the A330-100 and 500 concepts is completely inaccurate in my view. There was, just no demand based on a purchase price that would've allowed the development of a completely new wing and make a profit against existing competition.

Again the A310 wing was sized for the A310, nothing else.
The A300 wing was sized for the A300, upgraded for the A300-600.
and the A330 wing was sized for the A340.

No one is disagreeing or disputing that. What Taxi645 is saying is that was a strategic mistake and Airbus, when developing the A310, should have sized the new wing to be suitable for the A300 too to create a rewinged A300. No one is debating what Airbus did, the debate is over what Airbus should have done.

I completely understand what Taxi645 is saying, I simply disagree with him.

I am of the opinion, that an overdesigned wing for the A310, would not have been a help for Airbus at all. Airbus designed the A310 wing for the A310, as everybody is clamoring today for designing the right sized parts for the frame in question.

Nothing in the design of the A310 wing, should have stopped Airbus doing a bigger wing for the A300, they anyway redesigned the A300 wing for the A300-600 and that wing is a different size from the A310 wing.

Airbus was sizing the wings for every frame, at that time, a custom they should take up again. I assume the only reason Airbus is currently not doing a bigger wing for the A321 is the restriction of gate categories.

I think the entire argument is a bit revisionist and completely misses how the market was then, compared to how it is now. The A310 and A300 were never huge sellers, the A310 only sold ~250 units and looking at the list of airlines which ordered it, most of them either went out of business or operated the A330 or 767-300ER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... _operators
Various airlines made different calls, while European airlines favoured the lighter, but shorter range A321 for their high demand routes, US Airlines favoured the longer range, wide body 767. The 757 was more a 727 replacement in their fleets, but later used for range, while in Europe and Asia the 734 and A320 were the favoured replacements. The range on these aircraft was not sufficient for US airlines, although the A320 much improved over time.

Taxi645 wrote:

The A310 wing, misjudged market and a missed opportunity.
I want to again call focus on the strategic missed opportunity for Airbus in the product placement of the A310 (and A300) and the subsequent sizing of the A310’s updated wing.

I actually think the A310 wing was sized perfectly. An aircraft wing is sized for a combination of MTOW but also average stage length. The MTOW is an obvious factor, the higher the MTOW the bigger the wing.

Stage length is interesting. An aircraft optimised for long haul wants a slightly larger wing which can then use lower thrust engines. The empty weight increases but fuel burn reduces. An aircraft optimised for short haul wants a smaller wing with lower empty weight but higher thrust engines to compensate.

This means if we fix the wing size, the A310 wing is sized perfectly for a 150t MTOW long haul frame but also sized perfectly for a 170t MTOW short haul frame. The short haul frame then needs extra thrust.

Another common design link is when an aircraft is stretched the range reduces if the MTOW remains constant. So a stretch turns an aircraft from a long range frame to a medium haul frame for example the 787-9 to 787-10.

Linking all of this together means stretching the A310 frame slightly moves it from a medium/long range optimised frame to a short/medium optimised frame. So the MTOW can increase while keeping the same smaller wing. This means the A310 is still good for a A300 length short haul optimised frame.

The idea that the A310 wing was too small for the short haul A300 is wrong. The area might be smaller but wingspan is the biggest factor for lift and they are similar.

In summary Airbus could have fitted the A310 wing to heavier shorter ranged A300 length aircraft and had improved optimisation.

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO, the wing of the A310 did well. The wing was sized to the size of the frame. The drag of a wing depends not only on the AR, but also on other design factors, like for example the profile. That was for the A310 a supercritical profile, reducing drag.

I agree the A310 wing is perfect for the frame. I think it was the short stubby fuselage that caused it to end production early. A short cabin length to fuselage length ratio ate into valuable percentage points of efficiency.

A simple stretch of the A310-300 from the 46.66m to somewhere between the length of the A300 of 54.08m would have fixed that ratio.

The PW4000 has a bypass ratio of 4.8:1 94inch fan.
The CF6-80C2 has a bypass ratio of 5:1 93inch fan.

The Trent 500 has a 7.5:1 bypass ratio with 97inch fan. It entered service in 2000. Perfect size, perfect weight and perfect timing for a short/medium range A310/A300 replacement to sit well below the A330 in size and capability.

Fuel burn estimates with the Trent 500 would have increased range of the A310-300 from 5,150nm to around 5,500nm with the same 164t MTOW

I would think the A310 wing combined with the Trent 500 engines could have been fitted on the longer A300 fuselage length. Compared to the A300-600R it would have had greater range, lower empty weight and improved fuel burn. The smaller A310 wing on the A300 would have helped keep distance from the A33 by making it optimised for shorter stage lengths.

BrianDromey wrote:

I think the entire argument is a bit revisionist and completely misses how the market was then, compared to how it is now. The A310 and A300 were never huge sellers, the A310 only sold ~250 units and looking at the list of airlines which ordered it, most of them either went out of business or operated the A330 or 767-300ER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... _operators
Various airlines made different calls, while European airlines favoured the lighter, but shorter range A321 for their high demand routes, US Airlines favoured the longer range, wide body 767. The 757 was more a 727 replacement in their fleets, but later used for range, while in Europe and Asia the 734 and A320 were the favoured replacements. The range on these aircraft was not sufficient for US airlines, although the A320 much improved over time.

I'll admit at least a lot of it is hindsight, but what your saying is actually reinforcing my point. The market wanted longer range, but the wings of the A310 and the A300 were not designed for it and did not a allow an economically viable pathway to get their. That is the misjudged market I was talking about. They built the A310 wing around the 2.000 nm A310-100 (which as said never sold and was cancelled) and the 3.000 nm A310-200, while in reality 2/3rds of the sales went to the 300 introduced later which eventually ended up with over 5.000 nm range. So the wing was designed for a demand that wasn't there while it was suboptimal for the demand that actually was there (somewhat); the A310-300. In the meantime the A300 was left with a wing, not fit to allow it to evolve into an optimized medium haul airliner.

RJMAZ wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

The A310 wing, misjudged market and a missed opportunity.
I want to again call focus on the strategic missed opportunity for Airbus in the product placement of the A310 (and A300) and the subsequent sizing of the A310’s updated wing.

I actually think the A310 wing was sized perfectly.

Yes, so prefect in fact they had to add wingfences a mere 2 years after EIS because it turned out demand gravitated much more to the high range missions and that's not what the A310 wing was dimensioned for. It was sized perfectly for the market they had intended, but not for the market for which there was actual demand. The wingfences were even retrofitted to some 200 frames. Indicating that even for the lower range 200, the extra cost of fitting them afterwards was worthwhile to reduce induced drag of the small wing.

RJMAZ wrote:

An aircraft wing is sized for a combination of MTOW but also average stage length. The MTOW is an obvious factor, the higher the MTOW the bigger the wing.

Stage length is interesting. An aircraft optimised for long haul wants a slightly larger wing which can then use lower thrust engines. The empty weight increases but fuel burn reduces. An aircraft optimised for short haul wants a smaller wing with lower empty weight but higher thrust engines to compensate.

This means if we fix the wing size, the A310 wing is sized perfectly for a 150t MTOW long haul frame but also sized perfectly for a 170t MTOW short haul frame. The short haul frame then needs extra thrust.

Another common design link is when an aircraft is stretched the range reduces if the MTOW remains constant. So a stretch turns an aircraft from a long range frame to a medium haul frame for example the 787-9 to 787-10.

Linking all of this together means stretching the A310 frame slightly moves it from a medium/long range optimised frame to a short/medium optimised frame. So the MTOW can increase while keeping the same smaller wing. This means the A310 is still good for a A300 length short haul optimised frame.

The idea that the A310 wing was too small for the short haul A300 is wrong. The area might be smaller but wingspan is the biggest factor for lift and they are similar.

In summary Airbus could have fitted the A310 wing to heavier shorter ranged A300 length aircraft and had improved optimisation.

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO, the wing of the A310 did well. The wing was sized to the size of the frame. The drag of a wing depends not only on the AR, but also on other design factors, like for example the profile. That was for the A310 a supercritical profile, reducing drag.

I agree the A310 wing is perfect for the frame. I think it was the short stubby fuselage that caused it to end production early. A short cabin length to fuselage length ratio ate into valuable percentage points of efficiency.

A simple stretch of the A310-300 from the 46.66m to somewhere between the length of the A300 of 54.08m would have fixed that ratio.

The PW4000 has a bypass ratio of 4.8:1 94inch fan.
The CF6-80C2 has a bypass ratio of 5:1 93inch fan.

The Trent 500 has a 7.5:1 bypass ratio with 97inch fan. It entered service in 2000. Perfect size, perfect weight and perfect timing for a short/medium range A310/A300 replacement to sit well below the A330 in size and capability.

Fuel burn estimates with the Trent 500 would have increased range of the A310-300 from 5,150nm to around 5,500nm with the same 164t MTOW

I would think the A310 wing combined with the Trent 500 engines could have been fitted on the longer A300 fuselage length. Compared to the A300-600R it would have had greater range, lower empty weight and improved fuel burn. The smaller A310 wing on the A300 would have helped keep distance from the A33 by making it optimised for shorter stage lengths.

Most of the weight difference is in the actual wing box to cope with the stresses of the larger span. I doubt that Airbus actually changed the design of the wingbox for the A310 compared to the A300 but am welcome to stand corrected on that. That would mean that the sizing of the A310 wing did not actually result in that much weight reduction, just an aerodynamically much superior design.

As you know, over time airframes evolve into having more range. The 767 had the wing to make that transition successfully, the A310/A300 did not. An A300-600R with the proposed 46.5m/250m2 wing with increased fuel volume could've ended up with over 5.000 nm of range. An A300"NEO" with some further wing end work and the Trent 500 with over 5.500 nm. Those are not ranges where a 43,9m or 44,8m span works great for the 171.7-173t MTOW.

The A310"NEO", as you also suggested, could then have been stretched to about 2,5m to about 49m with over 6.000 nm range.

However the pathway to such a plane was not there because a completely new wing would have to be developed, making the required purchase price unattractive compared to the already established 767 and the A330. A larger A310 wing (also for the A300) would have definitively helped there.

Taxi645 wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

I think the entire argument is a bit revisionist and completely misses how the market was then, compared to how it is now. The A310 and A300 were never huge sellers, the A310 only sold ~250 units and looking at the list of airlines which ordered it, most of them either went out of business or operated the A330 or 767-300ER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... _operators
Various airlines made different calls, while European airlines favoured the lighter, but shorter range A321 for their high demand routes, US Airlines favoured the longer range, wide body 767. The 757 was more a 727 replacement in their fleets, but later used for range, while in Europe and Asia the 734 and A320 were the favoured replacements. The range on these aircraft was not sufficient for US airlines, although the A320 much improved over time.

I'll admit at least a lot of it is hindsight, but what your saying is actually reinforcing my point. The market wanted longer range, but the wings of the A310 and the A300 were not designed for it and did not a allow an economically viable pathway to get their. That is the misjudged market I was talking about. They built the A310 wing around the 2.000 nm A310-100 (which as said never sold and was cancelled) and the 3.000 nm A310-200, while in reality 2/3rds of the sales went to the 300 introduced later which eventually ended up with over 5.000 nm range. So the wing was designed for a demand that wasn't there while it was suboptimal for the demand that actually was there (somewhat); the A310-300. In the meantime the A300 was left with a wing, not fit to allow it to evolve into an optimized medium haul airliner.

RJMAZ wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

The A310 wing, misjudged market and a missed opportunity.
I want to again call focus on the strategic missed opportunity for Airbus in the product placement of the A310 (and A300) and the subsequent sizing of the A310’s updated wing.

I actually think the A310 wing was sized perfectly.

Yes, so prefect in fact they had to add wingfences a mere 2 years after EIS because it turned out demand gravitated much more to the high range missions and that's not what the A310 wing was dimensioned for. It was sized perfectly for the market they had intended, but not for the market for which there was actual demand. The wingfences were even retrofitted to some 200 frames. Indicating that even for the lower range 200, the extra cost of fitting them afterwards was worthwhile to reduce induced drag of the small wing.

RJMAZ wrote:

An aircraft wing is sized for a combination of MTOW but also average stage length. The MTOW is an obvious factor, the higher the MTOW the bigger the wing.

Stage length is interesting. An aircraft optimised for long haul wants a slightly larger wing which can then use lower thrust engines. The empty weight increases but fuel burn reduces. An aircraft optimised for short haul wants a smaller wing with lower empty weight but higher thrust engines to compensate.

This means if we fix the wing size, the A310 wing is sized perfectly for a 150t MTOW long haul frame but also sized perfectly for a 170t MTOW short haul frame. The short haul frame then needs extra thrust.

Another common design link is when an aircraft is stretched the range reduces if the MTOW remains constant. So a stretch turns an aircraft from a long range frame to a medium haul frame for example the 787-9 to 787-10.

Linking all of this together means stretching the A310 frame slightly moves it from a medium/long range optimised frame to a short/medium optimised frame. So the MTOW can increase while keeping the same smaller wing. This means the A310 is still good for a A300 length short haul optimised frame.

The idea that the A310 wing was too small for the short haul A300 is wrong. The area might be smaller but wingspan is the biggest factor for lift and they are similar.

In summary Airbus could have fitted the A310 wing to heavier shorter ranged A300 length aircraft and had improved optimisation.

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO, the wing of the A310 did well. The wing was sized to the size of the frame. The drag of a wing depends not only on the AR, but also on other design factors, like for example the profile. That was for the A310 a supercritical profile, reducing drag.

I agree the A310 wing is perfect for the frame. I think it was the short stubby fuselage that caused it to end production early. A short cabin length to fuselage length ratio ate into valuable percentage points of efficiency.

A simple stretch of the A310-300 from the 46.66m to somewhere between the length of the A300 of 54.08m would have fixed that ratio.

The PW4000 has a bypass ratio of 4.8:1 94inch fan.
The CF6-80C2 has a bypass ratio of 5:1 93inch fan.

The Trent 500 has a 7.5:1 bypass ratio with 97inch fan. It entered service in 2000. Perfect size, perfect weight and perfect timing for a short/medium range A310/A300 replacement to sit well below the A330 in size and capability.

Fuel burn estimates with the Trent 500 would have increased range of the A310-300 from 5,150nm to around 5,500nm with the same 164t MTOW

I would think the A310 wing combined with the Trent 500 engines could have been fitted on the longer A300 fuselage length. Compared to the A300-600R it would have had greater range, lower empty weight and improved fuel burn. The smaller A310 wing on the A300 would have helped keep distance from the A33 by making it optimised for shorter stage lengths.

Most of the weight difference is in the actual wing box to cope with the stresses of the larger span. I doubt that Airbus actually changed the design of the wingbox for the A310 compared to the A300 but am welcome to stand corrected on that. That would mean that the sizing of the A310 wing did not actually result in that much weight reduction, just an aerodynamically much superior design.

As you know, over time airframes evolve into having more range. The 767 had the wing to make that transition successfully, the A310/A300 did not. An A300-600R with the proposed 46.5m/250m2 wing with increased fuel volume could've ended up with over 5.000 nm of range. An A300"NEO" with some further wing end work and the Trent 500 with over 5.500 nm. Those are not ranges where a 43,9m or 44,8m span works great for the 171.7-173t MTOW.

The A310"NEO", as you also suggested, could then have been stretched to about 2,5m to about 49m with over 6.000 nm range.

However the pathway to such a plane was not there because a completely new wing would have to be developed, making the required purchase price unattractive compared to the already established 767 and the A330. A larger A310 wing (also for the A300) would have definitively helped there.

I know you have a nice theory about the wing size of the A310.

1. The A310 and the A300 did not have the same sized wing. Yes Airbus did put wing tip devices on the A310 wing. but how that is proving that the A310 wing was to small is beyond my understanding. The 737, 747, 767, 777, 787 are all sporting wing tip devices. You just proved that all of them have to small wings. Of course Airbus kept on fitting wing tip devices on later frames too.

2. The A310 sold 255 frames and the same size 767-200 sold 249 frames. I would say the bigger wing of the 767-200 did not help it in any way to sell better than the A310. If we of course do not use hindsight, Airbus never expected to sell more than 250 of the A310. Mission accomplished. There was not a bigger market for that size of frame.

I could agree with you that the A300 could have used a bigger wing and higher MTOW to get more range at the same size, but we do not know if that would have needed a bigger wing box, MLG and so on.
Airbus decision was to go to an overall bigger frame, with a bigger wing and overall more potential, the A330. I assume customers asked them to. Any later move of Airbus to offer an A300 sized frame to it's customers did not meet with success. The market did not want a smaller frame.

So I completely disagree with you, that the wing size of the A310 was a strategic failure. The market does not want an A310/300 sized wide body frame, at least not for passenger use, as the success of the bigger A330, 777 and 787 show. The smaller, shorter ranged wide body frames stopped selling, even the 767-400 was a flop.

And again the A300 with 561 sold frames did not do to bad at it's time, if you combine it with the A310 it is 816 frames. The DC10/MD11 managed 646 including the KC10. The Lockheed Tri-Star managed 250.
If you look at the A330 as a continuation of the A300, than we are at 2.341 frames delivered.

Taxi645 wrote:

An A300-600R with the proposed 46.5m/250m2 wing with increased fuel volume could've ended up with over 5.000 nm of range. An A300"NEO" with some further wing end work and the Trent 500 with over 5.500 nm. Those are not ranges where a 43,9m or 44,8m span works great for the 171.7-173t MTOW.

Your A300NEO with 5,500nm would be too close to the original A330 which was a brand new design. The first A330 had a MTOW of 212t and also had a range around 5,500nm.

In 2007 that was the last year of A300 production and also the program launch of the full carbon A350 XWB. As the A350 was larger and more capable than the A330 then such a A300NEO would have complimented the A350 perfectly.

It would have eliminated the need for the A330NEO program a few years later.

I think the issue is Airbus had all resources allocated to the A380 between 2000 and 2007. After 2007 they had the A350 and A320NEO program taking all resources which both flew in 2013 and 2014 respectively. The A300 was long out of production and the A330NEO was the easier solution.

I think the A330NEO was the wrong decision and will die a slow death. Airbus should have invested more and gone with a new carbon wing and optimise it for shorter ranged and lower MTOW. The A330-800 has 8,150nmi range which is why it doesn't sell, yet the similar capacity 787-8 sold like hotcakes.

Instead of the 64m 465m2 wing of the A330NEO the and ideal specs would have been to put a high aspect ratio 52m code D wing around 300m2. 110t OEW and 200t MTOW with a range just under 7,000nm. It would have beaten the 787-8 on shorter stage length thanks to the lower OEW. The A330-300/900 length version would have had a range around 6,000nm. Ideal for medium haul like the 787-10.

Polot wrote:

That’s why Delta, for example, replaced their rather new A310s with 763ERs and not 762ERs. KLM is another good example.

Delta dumped the A310 because of their Leadership 7.5 cost cutting programme due to serious financial trouble. Delta was very satisfied with their A310(-300), they even ordered new ones. It was perfectly sized for some markets where the 25% larger 767-300ER was just a bit too much. But when they needed to consolidate their fleet to cut cost the A310 and 767-300ER were too close in size and their missions too similar to pay the "premium" to operate both fleets side by side.
And the decision 767 or A310 was pretty easy I think, given the already large 757/767 fleet at Delta then.

RJMAZ wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

An A300-600R with the proposed 46.5m/250m2 wing with increased fuel volume could've ended up with over 5.000 nm of range. An A300"NEO" with some further wing end work and the Trent 500 with over 5.500 nm. Those are not ranges where a 43,9m or 44,8m span works great for the 171.7-173t MTOW.

Your A300NEO with 5,500nm would be too close to the original A330 which was a brand new design. The first A330 had a MTOW of 212t and also had a range around 5,500nm.

In 2007 that was the last year of A300 production and also the program launch of the full carbon A350 XWB. As the A350 was larger and more capable than the A330 then such a A300NEO would have complimented the A350 perfectly.

It would have eliminated the need for the A330NEO program a few years later.

I think the issue is Airbus had all resources allocated to the A380 between 2000 and 2007. After 2007 they had the A350 and A320NEO program taking all resources which both flew in 2013 and 2014 respectively. The A300 was long out of production and the A330NEO was the easier solution.

I think the A330NEO was the wrong decision and will die a slow death. Airbus should have invested more and gone with a new carbon wing and optimise it for shorter ranged and lower MTOW. The A330-800 has 8,150nmi range which is why it doesn't sell, yet the similar capacity 787-8 sold like hotcakes.

Instead of the 64m 465m2 wing of the A330NEO the and ideal specs would have been to put a high aspect ratio 52m code D wing around 300m2. 110t OEW and 200t MTOW with a range just under 7,000nm. It would have beaten the 787-8 on shorter stage length thanks to the lower OEW. The A330-300/900 length version would have had a range around 6,000nm. Ideal for medium haul like the 787-10.

Was /is there any right engine for such a plane? It would make a perfect nma

Kikko19 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

An A300-600R with the proposed 46.5m/250m2 wing with increased fuel volume could've ended up with over 5.000 nm of range. An A300"NEO" with some further wing end work and the Trent 500 with over 5.500 nm. Those are not ranges where a 43,9m or 44,8m span works great for the 171.7-173t MTOW.

Your A300NEO with 5,500nm would be too close to the original A330 which was a brand new design. The first A330 had a MTOW of 212t and also had a range around 5,500nm.

In 2007 that was the last year of A300 production and also the program launch of the full carbon A350 XWB. As the A350 was larger and more capable than the A330 then such a A300NEO would have complimented the A350 perfectly.

It would have eliminated the need for the A330NEO program a few years later.

I think the issue is Airbus had all resources allocated to the A380 between 2000 and 2007. After 2007 they had the A350 and A320NEO program taking all resources which both flew in 2013 and 2014 respectively. The A300 was long out of production and the A330NEO was the easier solution.

I think the A330NEO was the wrong decision and will die a slow death. Airbus should have invested more and gone with a new carbon wing and optimise it for shorter ranged and lower MTOW. The A330-800 has 8,150nmi range which is why it doesn't sell, yet the similar capacity 787-8 sold like hotcakes.

Instead of the 64m 465m2 wing of the A330NEO the and ideal specs would have been to put a high aspect ratio 52m code D wing around 300m2. 110t OEW and 200t MTOW with a range just under 7,000nm. It would have beaten the 787-8 on shorter stage length thanks to the lower OEW. The A330-300/900 length version would have had a range around 6,000nm. Ideal for medium haul like the 787-10.

Was /is there any right engine for such a plane? It would make a perfect nma

Yes, GEnx-1B. Although, A300-600's range is too short at ~4,000 nmi. B767-300ER main selling point is their range, hence why they are selling so well compared to other B767 variants.

Presumably if we want to have a range of at least ~6,000nmi to match B767-300ER. They need to increase the thrust and fuel capacity. I say they need to use the same thrust as B787-8. Problem is, B787-8 could carry ~20 more passengers while burning less fuel and having more range than A300-600NEO.

As for A310, there are GEnx-1B54/P2. Which would be around 1-to-1 replacement for their old engines. The A310NEO would have similar ranges and capability as A310CEO but with slightly better fuel efficiency.