c933103 wrote:Polot wrote:WIederling wrote:A proposed shorter A330-100 ( ~ A300 capacity ) would have been +6% more fuel efficient on typical A300 routes.
And yet Airbus couldn't get enough interest to launch the plane. Being 6% more fuel efficient than an older generation plane while having the structure for long range becomes less impressive if an optimized plane (with the same tech level as the long range shrink or whatever) is say 15-20% better than the older plane.
The difference in using A321s versus the proposed A331 for most missions killed the proposal. If you didn't need the range using A321s was far superior. If you needed the range A332/A333s were better. Boeing (and to a slightly lesser extent Airbus) are looking at ways to narrow the gap for larger than 737-10/A321 aircraft without having to resort exclusivity to range to build its business case.
Well, MoM is not exactly a short ranged plane.... However if a further shrink of 330 is to occur it would be like the third shrunk of the model...
I wonder if it is possible for them to reuse some components from A310.
It started out with the A300, so the A330-300 is a stretch.
Airbus could do a A300 sized frame, were only the diameter of the tube is common to the A330 or A300.