The A310. Obviously not a huge success. But given the debate about the opening in the MOM market (which the 757 has sucked up much of the oxygen), was the A310 (and it's possible advancements) the right aircraft just ahead of its time. I flew it so often on WD/CP and always loved it.

The A300-600 had the improvements developed for the A310.

Maybe....slap some new engines on it, redesign the wings/tail/horizontal stabilizer, change up the cross section a bit, shorten or lengthen the fuselage, switch out the cockpit and nose section, add entirely new landing gears, and voila! A310-800neo-8. Will compete nicely with the upcoming 757-800Max or the 797-800 or MoM-800 or whatever Boeing decides to build and add a bunch of 8s to.

If you wonder about it just considering the amount of units sold, I easily say no. Airbus was young and the airline industry was much smaller. Even more, the B767 was already available.
If you wonder from a pure tech point of view like I often heard about L-1011, I hope someone with more knowledge will reply.

DarthLobster wrote:

(...) change up the cross section a bit (...)

But keep the 2-4-2 economy seating!

I definitely liked the A310-300, just like I like the 767. Flew it with LH a few times when I was a teen bet. JFK/EWR and FRA. Not too many passengers, only two seats by the window, etc.

Maybe yes.
It wasn't a bad idea. Mid to long range, mid to low capacity in a widebody.
The A310's legacy is held by the A332, what do you think?

Loved the A310, quite similar what Dampfnudel said, I flew on it with LH, when visiting my folks in NJ a couple of times. (EWR/JFK). I'd wager a guess that bringing it up to today's performance/economics targets, requires something close to a clean sheet though.

Boac747 wrote:

The A310. Obviously not a huge success. But given the debate about the opening in the MOM market (which the 757 has sucked up much of the oxygen), was the A310 (and it's possible advancements) the right aircraft just ahead of its time. I flew it so often on WD/CP and always loved it.

With 232 build, it did fine for a derivative, in that day and age. Airbus was then the new kid on the block with a lot to prove.
The MOM is always going to be a bit problematic, too big for a single aisle and too small for a double aisle to be efficient.

The A310 had similar sales figures as the 767-200. A310 had 255 and the 767-200/200ER had 249. So either both a success or both a flop.

The A330 is really the extension of the A300/310. But the A330 is not only stretched, re winged and re engined, but perhaps the most significant change was the move to a FBW system for the complete flight control.

I really would not understand why the A310 would be dissed as a possible starting point for a 797 competitor. Of course not a A310neo. But taking the fuselage and MLG, adding FBW, new wings and new engines should give a frame that is right in the middle of the perceived gap for a small wide body.

A310 Neo can be the new MOM

I do not think so by one single reason: it is widely expected that Boeing's MOM will be single aisle which the A310 was not. Nowadays, you would see the B787-8 potentially competing to the A310 if this one was still in the market (maybe a slightly stretched A310 that is...).What I would argue is that Boeing terminated the B757 project way too early. they should keep it alive since they got eaten away by the A321 (the rreal competitor on this market although with not as much range - to potentially be addressed by an A321ELR or A322 of some sort).

The global airline market is 4 times bigger now than when the A310 launched.

The 250-350 seat max economy market was also highly contested with multiple aircraft. The 752, 753, A310, 762, 763 A300 and 763ER were all evenly spaced.

For the A310 to sell 255 aircraft is brilliant.

If an A310NEO was on the market today it would probably be selling like hot cakes. It would sit alone without much competition with the A321LR far below and the 787-8 far above in capacity/range. With the market being much bigger now that would easily add up to 1000+ aircraft.

But an A300NEO, 767NEO or 757NEO would all be selling well if they had the big MOM gap for themselves.

RJMAZ wrote:

The global airline market is 4 times bigger now than when the A310 launched.

The 250-350 seat max economy market was also highly contested with multiple aircraft. The 752, 753, A310, 762, 763 A300 and 763ER were all evenly spaced.

For the A310 to sell 255 aircraft is brilliant.

If an A310NEO was on the market today it would probably be selling like hot cakes. It would sit alone without much competition with the A321LR far below and the 787-8 far above in capacity/range. With the market being much bigger now that would easily add up to 1000+ aircraft.

But an A300NEO, 767NEO or 757NEO would all be selling well if they had the big MOM gap for themselves.

agree, are there the right engines around for it? I guess the barrel is the same of the a330 so only the wings / and materials should be re-designed. I'm sure AB has a secret drawer with tons of projects and one has a a310/a300neo name on it

Jomar777 wrote:

What I would argue is that Boeing terminated the B757 project way too early. they should keep it alive since they got eaten away by the A321 (the rreal competitor on this market although with not as much range - to potentially be addressed by an A321ELR or A322 of some sort).

I do agree with you on this one, A B757 Max would have been a better choice than the B737-10

B757 can be replaced only by B757

I flew all of KU's A310s more times than I care to count - lovely airplane and contributes to my preference for Airbus even today.

RJMAZ wrote:

The global airline market is 4 times bigger now than when the A310 launched.

The 250-350 seat max economy market was also highly contested with multiple aircraft. The 752, 753, A310, 762, 763 A300 and 763ER were all evenly spaced.

For the A310 to sell 255 aircraft is brilliant.

All of the above plus the fact that it came from a relatively new manufacturer with its inherent unknowns.

RJMAZ wrote:

If an A310NEO was on the market today it would probably be selling like hot cakes. It would sit alone without much competition with the A321LR far below and the 787-8 far above in capacity/range. With the market being much bigger now that would easily add up to 1000+ aircraft.

But an A300NEO, 767NEO or 757NEO would all be selling well if they had the big MOM gap for themselves.

This I'm not so sure. The airline market grew 4 times which is why aircraft sizes have also grown. The A310/A300/B767 have all been effectively replaced by the A330/787/777 as a direct result of passenger growth. A long haul sub-250 pax airplane will always be a relatively small market. This is why Airbus can't optimize the A321's wing for longer missions, because the bulk of A321 demand is for short haul.

Kikko19 wrote:

agree, are there the right engines around for it? I guess the barrel is the same of the a330 so only the wings / and materials should be re-designed. I'm sure AB has a secret drawer with tons of projects and one has a a310/a300neo name on it

It is quite unfortunate that Airbus didn't keep an aircraft of A310/A300 in production. Individually they could not gain enough sales. With the A310 disappearing first and the A300 struggling as a freighter. They could have merged the best bits of the A300/A310 into a single model to sit below the A330.

The A310's superior lighter wing and slightly lighter landing gear could have been fitted to the A300 with a newer engine such as the Trent 1500. This was a proposed development of the Trent 500 used on the A340-500. It no doubt would have sold well after the market recovered following 9/11.

Looking forward I expect the A330NEO to limp along for another 5 years. Boeing will launch the NMA and get huge sales. Airbus will then create an aircraft using the A330 fuselage with a lighter and much smaller carbon wing with a much lower maximum takeoff weight.

The A330 fuselage tube, nose and tail is near identical to the one used in the A310 and A300 many years ago. So the tube itself is very light weight.

RJMAZ wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

agree, are there the right engines around for it? I guess the barrel is the same of the a330 so only the wings / and materials should be re-designed. I'm sure AB has a secret drawer with tons of projects and one has a a310/a300neo name on it

It is quite unfortunate that Airbus didn't keep an aircraft of A310/A300 in production. Individually they could not gain enough sales. With the A310 disappearing first and the A300 struggling as a freighter. They could have merged the best bits of the A300/A310 into a single model to sit below the A330.

The A310's superior lighter wing and slightly lighter landing gear could have been fitted to the A300 with a newer engine such as the Trent 1500. This was a proposed development of the Trent 500 used on the A340-500. It no doubt would have sold well after the market recovered following 9/11.

Looking forward I expect the A330NEO to limp along for another 5 years. Boeing will launch the NMA and get huge sales. Airbus will then create an aircraft using the A330 fuselage with a lighter and much smaller carbon wing with a much lower maximum takeoff weight.

The A330 fuselage tube, nose and tail is near identical to the one used in the A310 and A300 many years ago. So the tube itself is very light weight.

They merged the A300 and A310. The new features on the A310 were incorporated into the A300 with the A300-600 model. Airbus tried to offer first an A330-100 small 44.8 m wing and later an A330-500 with the 60.3 m wing, in A300 size. No takers at that time.

The original 330 did not have the long range legs it does not, but IIRC it always was a little to heavy to specialize in shorter legs against the 737/320.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A310 had similar sales figures as the 767-200. A310 had 255 and the 767-200/200ER had 249. So either both a success or both a flop.

You're too generous. After the 767-200, Boeing rolled out the 200ER, 300, and 300ER in short order. The A310 was a dead end.

FatCat wrote:

B757 can be replaced only by B757

This is an unpopular opinion, but I personally can't wait till every 757 is scrapped. They're really old birds and they're showing their age. The sooner they get replaced the better.

RJMAZ wrote:

The A310's superior lighter wing and slightly lighter landing gear could have been fitted to the A300 with a newer engine such as the Trent 1500. This was a proposed development of the Trent 500 used on the A340-500. It no doubt would have sold well after the market recovered following 9/11.

That's called the A330.

MIflyer12 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The A310 had similar sales figures as the 767-200. A310 had 255 and the 767-200/200ER had 249. So either both a success or both a flop.

You're too generous. After the 767-200, Boeing rolled out the 200ER, 300, and 300ER in short order. The A310 was a dead end.

And Airbus rolled out the A330 which eclipsed the 767. He's point however was that the A310 as a direct competitor to the B762/ER, not the B763/ER and those 2 sold about the same.

musman9853 wrote:

FatCat wrote:

B757 can be replaced only by B757

This is an unpopular opinion, but I personally can't wait till every 757 is scrapped. They're really old birds and they're showing their age. The sooner they get replaced the better.

You could say that but the reason there are so many still in the skies is exactly the fact that there's nothing around that really replaces them. Airbus missed the bus in plugging the gap earlier with an A321ELR or A322 and I feel Boeing still regrets somehow doing away with them rather than create a B757-800 and later a B757-MAX, for example.

They were great when they were new and still very vital on some cases even now.

MIflyer12 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The A310 had similar sales figures as the 767-200. A310 had 255 and the 767-200/200ER had 249. So either both a success or both a flop.

You're too generous. After the 767-200, Boeing rolled out the 200ER, 300, and 300ER in short order. The A310 was a dead end.

The 767-300 was a competition to the A300.

The A310 was the shrink of the A300 and the 767-300 was the stretch of the 767-200.

The A310-200 and A310-300 had the same sales numbers as the 767-200 and 767-200ER combined. A310-200/300 255 and 767-200/200ER 249.

If you look at the sales numbers of the whole family of 767, you have to look at the sales figures of the A310 plus the A300, together 816 frames, and have to take in account that the A300/310 was replaced by the A330 back in 1994.

The A300 debuted in 1974, 8 years before the EIS of the 767-200.

In one word, the wing.

The 767-200 had a very ample wing dictated by the necessity to take off from LGA and fly transcontinental to the US western seaboard. This helped give the later 767-300 very long and capable legs when it came to developing a higher-capacity model.

The A310 had a wing optimised from the start for short-to-medium routes, so its longer range derivative, the A310-300 could not compete with either the 767-300’s range or capacity…


Faro

Boac747 wrote:

The A310. Obviously not a huge success. But given the debate about the opening in the MOM market (which the 757 has sucked up much of the oxygen), was the A310 (and it's possible advancements) the right aircraft just ahead of its time. I flew it so often on WD/CP and always loved it.

It was of its time.

The tech wasn't anything spectacular; it was just an early iteration of the A300-600R shrunk down to a size that the airlines wanted in medium or long range variants.

Anything that sits in the MOM slot is going to have to be something pretty special to justify its pricing. The A310 was by comparison relatively cheap as it reused the A300 body width and common frames. Only the wing was a departure from the earlier aircraft.

If anything a twin-aisle MOM of similar capacity is going to need to solve the weight and drag issues that the A310 came with. Also, is the LD3 full-size capability going to be worth it in any tradeoff?

DarthLobster wrote:

Maybe....slap some new engines on it, redesign the wings/tail/horizontal stabilizer, change up the cross section a bit, shorten or lengthen the fuselage, switch out the cockpit and nose section, add entirely new landing gears, and voila! A310-800neo-8. Will compete nicely with the upcoming 757-800Max or the 797-800 or MoM-800 or whatever Boeing decides to build and add a bunch of 8s to.

While the A310 was reputed to be a good airplane by Pan Am It didn't get a Wide Run here in the USA. It would need all New Avionics for a new model run and hit the ground with at Least as much range as the B777-200er to even get a fair look.
Especially since it can't come equipped with anything but a Rolls, or Pratt Engine in today's market as Boeing has the Big GE engines exclusively.

Jomar777 wrote:

I do not think so by one single reason: it is widely expected that Boeing's MOM will be single aisle which the A310 was not.

Where are you seeing that it is widely expected that the MOM will be single aisle? Everything I've ever read says that the MOM will be a twin aisle.

The number of units sold notwithstanding, I don't think we can downplay the pivotal role the A310 played in the growth of some of the industry giants today. If my memory is right, the likes of SQ, EK, TK, AI, SU, S7, etc. all relied on the A310 to build up their international operations in the 80s and 90s. So even if the A310 might not have been as prevalent as hoped, it still served its purpose--and given its lack of numbers, I would say it managed to do so disproportionately.

airbazar wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The A310's superior lighter wing and slightly lighter landing gear could have been fitted to the A300 with a newer engine such as the Trent 1500. This was a proposed development of the Trent 500 used on the A340-500. It no doubt would have sold well after the market recovered following 9/11.

That's called the A330.

Not true.

When the A330 first flew it had 25% more cabin area, 50% more range and weighed 35% more than the A300.

The 777-200 is actually closer to the 767-400 model in size and weight than the A330 is to the A300. No one would say the 777 is the 767 replacement.

Airbus simply lacked engineering resources and finances to update the A300. Saying the A330 Is a replacement is an excuse. The A380 sucked up all engineering resources for nearly a decade and the A300 was left to die during this time.

The A330-100 proposals offered no improvement over the A300. The only way the A330 could beat the CASM of the A300 was to go much larger in capacity.

Of course a 1990's tech A330 is going to beat a 1970's tech A300. But there is no chance the A330 would beat the A300 when it comes to short/medium haul CASM if they both had equal engine tech.

The A330 sales boomed in the last couple decades with most airlines using them in short to medium haul. It had the best CASM on the market for a medium capacity aircraft. This would not have been the case if the A300NEO was launched 15-20 years ago.

An A300NEO would be sitting perfectly between the A321 and A350 right now. The A330NEO was launched as a slightly smaller short haul compliment to the A350 with higher availability. If the A300NEO existed there would have been no need for the A330NEO.

I bring up the A300NEO in this thread as it would technically be a stretch of the A310 with new engines. It may have been called the A310-800 or A310-900.

The A310 was in the 'dead zone' of capacity (150-165m^2) where both widebody and narrowbody designs run into significant issues with design and therefore sales. The 762, it's contemporary analogue, sold no better and it had the option to upgrade to the ER, which had payload-range that was distinctly un-MOM. The 753 was the closest thing to an A310“neo", with similar/more capacity and less operating cost, EISed 16 years after the A310 and was a commercial turd. It appears that any aircraft in this segment needs to be a tad larger (A300/763) or smaller (A321/752) to be financially and commercially successful, which I think B would keep in mind for their MOM.

RJMAZ wrote:

airbazar wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The A310's superior lighter wing and slightly lighter landing gear could have been fitted to the A300 with a newer engine such as the Trent 1500. This was a proposed development of the Trent 500 used on the A340-500. It no doubt would have sold well after the market recovered following 9/11.

That's called the A330.

Not true.

When the A330 first flew it had 25% more cabin area, 50% more range and weighed 35% more than the A300.

Of course the A330 had lots of more range than the A300. That was the main point. The customers wanted range, that was the reason the A300 was loosing out against the 767-300ER. The A330 then proceeded to wipe the floor with the 767-300ER.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 777-200 is actually closer to the 767-400 model in size and weight than the A330 is to the A300. No one would say the 777 is the 767 replacement.

The 767-400 was an complete flop. No sales. If you want to compare the 777-200 with a 767 you have to take the 767-300ER.

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus simply lacked engineering resources and finances to update the A300. Saying the A330 Is a replacement is an excuse. The A380 sucked up all engineering resources for nearly a decade and the A300 was left to die during this time.

How you must hate the A380. The development of the A380 and spending for that program got into gear around the year 2000. Nothing to do with a development of a more modern A300.

RJMAZ wrote:

The A330-100 proposals offered no improvement over the A300. The only way the A330 could beat the CASM of the A300 was to go much larger in capacity.

Of course a 1990's tech A330 is going to beat a 1970's tech A300. But there is no chance the A330 would beat the A300 when it comes to short/medium haul CASM if they both had equal engine tech.

No you start talking nonsense. The A330-100 proposal was a A300 with 1990 tech. Most of the additional weight the A330 carries over and above the A300 is for additional MTOW and range. Big wing box, big wings, big MLG. But the fuselage is really still the A300.
Backing up, using the smaller components leads back to the A300 in size and weight and the A330-100 was the back to small design, including new smaller wings. But the A330-100 would have had the main advantage, 1990 tech and a FBW, modern cockpit and so on.

The proposed A330-500 was the proposed model keeping the big wings and most of the additional weight for more range than the A330-200.

RJMAZ wrote:

The A330 sales boomed in the last couple decades with most airlines using them in short to medium haul. It had the best CASM on the market for a medium capacity aircraft. This would not have been the case if the A300NEO was launched 15-20 years ago.

An A300NEO would be sitting perfectly between the A321 and A350 right now. The A330NEO was launched as a slightly smaller short haul compliment to the A350 with higher availability. If the A300NEO existed there would have been no need for the A330NEO.

The sales of the A330 boomed because Airbus added range. First the A330-200 and than growing both models. Nobody wanted a smaller twin.

RJMAZ wrote:

I bring up the A300NEO in this thread as it would technically be a stretch of the A310 with new engines. It may have been called the A310-800 or A310-900.

Mixing up things. The A310 and the A300 had different sized wings, wings adjusted to their different MTOW. The A310 was not a simple shrink of the A300. Airbus tried to take weight out and that leads also to the smaller lighter wing. Stretching the A310 would have lead to a bigger wing again again.

But the main point is, for a certain time nobody wanted a smaller medium range twin. The industry replaced the A310 and A300 and 767 with smaller narrow bodies on short and medium haul routes. Part of that process was that the smaller single aisle frames had grown in range. Airlines replacing the A310-300 and 767-300ER on the short range of long haul, looked for bigger frames.

If Airbus wants, it can still do a A300/310 sized A330-100. You combine the A300 fuselage, MLG, wing box with a modern wing. You use the A330 cockpit and FBW. The component missing is a modern right sized engine. The GEnx2b is the only engine today being near to the needed size, but still rather to big and heavy and by now slightly aged.

mjoelnir wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I bring up the A300NEO in this thread as it would technically be a stretch of the A310 with new engines. It may have been called the A310-800 or A310-900.

Mixing up things. The A310 and the A300 had different sized wings, wings adjusted to their different MTOW. The A310 was not a simple shrink of the A300. Airbus tried to take weight out and that leads also to the smaller lighter wing. Stretching the A310 would have lead to a bigger wing again again.

I'm not mixing things up at all.

Stretching the A310 to A300 length would not require a new wing. Any extra weight of the lengthened fuselage and extra payload would be totally offset by the reduced fuel load by newer generation engines.

An A300NEO for example flying 4000nm could carry approx 10T less fuel fuel than a normal A300. So the A310 wing would be a more appropriate size for an A300 size fuselage once you add newer engines. So the A300NEO would actually be a A310stretchNEO. They could have called it an entirely new name. It would most likely have used the A330 cockpit, A300 fuselage and tail, A310 wing and landing gear. A340advance engines.

I disagree about the A380. Development was at the exact time Airbus would want to do an A300NEO/A310NEO.

A380 development began in 2000 with first flight in 2005.
A310 production ended in 1998.
A300 production ended in 2007.
Trent 1500 proposal was in 2004 to fit onto the A340.

The A300NEO/A310NEO would have wanted to be launched in 2000-2002 for a first flight in 2005-2007. This is exactly the same time the A380 was under development. So you are definitely wrong.

The A380 killed the chance of them making a MOM aircraft. It would be selling like hotcakes now with big profit margins.

Jomar777 wrote:

I do not think so by one single reason: it is widely expected that Boeing's MOM will be single aisle which the A310 was not. Nowadays, you would see the B787-8 potentially competing to the A310 if this one was still in the market (maybe a slightly stretched A310 that is...).What I would argue is that Boeing terminated the B757 project way too early. they should keep it alive since they got eaten away by the A321 (the rreal competitor on this market although with not as much range - to potentially be addressed by an A321ELR or A322 of some sort).

Really? every single indication from Boeing, aviation media outlets...everywhere...EXCEPT a.net states it'll be a widebody.

mjoelnir wrote:

Mixing up things. The A310 and the A300 had different sized wings, wings adjusted to their different MTOW.

note: A300B4 vs A310: MTOW delta is 12%(A310-200), 0%(A310-300), wing size delta is 20% ( 210m² vs 260m² )

The A310 got a completely new wing ( and profile too). the full step over to "super critical" ( the Euro Version
The supercritical layout was continued into the A320 ( adding FBW), A330/A340, ...

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I bring up the A300NEO in this thread as it would technically be a stretch of the A310 with new engines. It may have been called the A310-800 or A310-900.

Mixing up things. The A310 and the A300 had different sized wings, wings adjusted to their different MTOW. The A310 was not a simple shrink of the A300. Airbus tried to take weight out and that leads also to the smaller lighter wing. Stretching the A310 would have lead to a bigger wing again again.

I'm not mixing things up at all.

Stretching the A310 to A300 length would not require a new wing. Any extra weight of the lengthened fuselage and extra payload would be totally offset by the reduced fuel load by newer generation engines.

An A300NEO for example flying 4000nm could carry approx 10T less fuel fuel than a normal A300. So the A310 wing would be a more appropriate size for an A300 size fuselage once you add newer engines. So the A300NEO would actually be a A310stretchNEO. They could have called it an entirely new name. It would most likely have used the A330 cockpit, A300 fuselage and tail, A310 wing and landing gear. A340advance engines.

I disagree about the A380. Development was at the exact time Airbus would want to do an A300NEO/A310NEO.

A380 development began in 2000 with first flight in 2005.
A310 production ended in 1998.
A300 production ended in 2007.
Trent 1500 proposal was in 2004 to fit onto the A340.

The A300NEO/A310NEO would have wanted to be launched in 2000-2002 for a first flight in 2005-2007. This is exactly the same time the A380 was under development. So you are definitely wrong.

The A380 killed the chance of them making a MOM aircraft. It would be selling like hotcakes now with big profit margins.

Sales/ Orders of passenger A300/310 had dropped before 1995 and Airbus was looking at reviving those sales. The Trent 500, the engine the A330-100 was supposed to use, was available around 2000. The thrust of the Trent 500, with around 58 klbf is comparable to the engines used on the A310 and A300. So definitely quite a bit smaller frame than the A330. The wing, a more modern version than on the A300/310 was supposed to have a span of around 45 m. MTOW was supposed to be 173t. The A310-300 had 165 and The A300-600 had 172 for comparison. Range was estimated at 4.200 nm. Full FBW system, as on all Airbus aircraft since the A320.
That A330-100 was offered. It did not die because Airbus had no time, money or desire to build it. It did die because there was no business case, not enough airlines did want that frame. Those proposals were made well before the year 2000, before the design of the A380 went into full swing. Airlines wanted medium or big twins at that time, not small ones.

So a A330/310neo plus was offered by Airbus, but no takers at that time. They even went better than your proposal, not the wing of the A310 unchanged, but a new one.

mjoelnir wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Mixing up things. The A310 and the A300 had different sized wings, wings adjusted to their different MTOW. The A310 was not a simple shrink of the A300. Airbus tried to take weight out and that leads also to the smaller lighter wing. Stretching the A310 would have lead to a bigger wing again again.

I'm not mixing things up at all.

Stretching the A310 to A300 length would not require a new wing. Any extra weight of the lengthened fuselage and extra payload would be totally offset by the reduced fuel load by newer generation engines.

An A300NEO for example flying 4000nm could carry approx 10T less fuel fuel than a normal A300. So the A310 wing would be a more appropriate size for an A300 size fuselage once you add newer engines. So the A300NEO would actually be a A310stretchNEO. They could have called it an entirely new name. It would most likely have used the A330 cockpit, A300 fuselage and tail, A310 wing and landing gear. A340advance engines.

I disagree about the A380. Development was at the exact time Airbus would want to do an A300NEO/A310NEO.

A380 development began in 2000 with first flight in 2005.
A310 production ended in 1998.
A300 production ended in 2007.
Trent 1500 proposal was in 2004 to fit onto the A340.

The A300NEO/A310NEO would have wanted to be launched in 2000-2002 for a first flight in 2005-2007. This is exactly the same time the A380 was under development. So you are definitely wrong.

The A380 killed the chance of them making a MOM aircraft. It would be selling like hotcakes now with big profit margins.

The wing, a more modern version than on the A300/310 was supposed to have a span of around 45 m. MTOW was supposed to be 173t. The A310-300 had 165 and The A300-600 had 172 for comparison. Range was estimated at 4.200 nm. Full FBW system, as on all Airbus aircraft since the A320.
That A330-100 was offered. It did not die because Airbus had no time, money or desire to build it. It did die because there was no business case, not enough airlines did want that frame. Those proposals were made well before the year 2000, before the design of the A380 went into full swing. Airlines wanted medium or big twins at that time, not small ones..

Stop rewriting history, the A331, modern A300 wing and all, was not the one that was officially offered to airlines.

In May, the 210-260 seat design had evolved towards keeping the A330 60.3m (200ft) span wing and engines for a 195t MTOW and 4,500nmi (8,325km) range. Interested customers included Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Hapag-Lloyd.[162]

Announced in July at Farnborough Air Show, the -500 first flight was targeted for early 2003 and introduction in early 2004. ILFC would take 10 if it was launched and CIT was interested too. The eight-frame shrink would carry 222 in three classes or 266 in two classes. Its initial 13,000km (7,000nm) range would be followed by derated versions for 8,000km (4,350nm).[163] The market was lukewarm as airline like Lufthansa, Hapag-Lloyd or Singapore Airlines were unimpressed by the long-range A330-500, favouring a more refined short-range design.

As it turns out, customers were interested in optimized short range variants, not the bait&switch crappy derated shrink that was finally offered. Hmm I wonder why Airbus wasn't able to spare the R&D for the former in the early 2000s...

Channex757 wrote:

The tech wasn't anything spectacular; it was just an early iteration of the A300-600R shrunk down to a size that the airlines wanted in medium or long range variants.

The A310 might have looked 'normal' but it was very advanced for its era and not only because of the supercritical wing. The underside of the wing had a double-curvature profile that had only previously been tried experimentally and which required new production techniques to be invented.

It was also the first airliner to be significantly designed using CAD, accounting for 25% of the structure

Cabin layout and accommodation was computer-modelled, again a first.

Admittedly the 767 did beat the A310 to service with a composite rudder and CRTs in the cockpit...

I also thought about the A310 being a good MOM possibility for Airbus a few times already. Size should be perfect, 8 abreast and "container ready". Isnt the wing very advanced already? Maybe they can add more composite material here and there, new cabin, A330neo cockpit, A330neo wingtips and new engines of course. Maybe worth considering.

mjoelnir wrote:

Sales/ Orders of passenger A300/310 had dropped before 1995 and Airbus was looking at reviving those sales.

That's because the A330-300 came out with newer tech engines, supercritical wing and larger size which helps CASM.

If the A300 had a smaller supercritical wing and equal tech engines like the Trent 500 its sales would not have dropped. If it waited a few more years for the Trent 1500 it would have stolen the show.

As justsomedude pointed out airlines wanted a short haul optimised widebody like an A300NEO. Not a half assed A330 shrink that they were offered. Even if they used the Trent 500 engines in 2000, A300NEO development would have overlapped with the start of the A380. If airbus used the Trent 1500 on the A300NEO development would have started just when the A380 had big delays in 2006-2008.

Production of the A300 had ended by the time all the A380 problems were fixed. Usually you want to launch a replacement aircraft many years before production ends.

JustSomeDood wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm not mixing things up at all.

Stretching the A310 to A300 length would not require a new wing. Any extra weight of the lengthened fuselage and extra payload would be totally offset by the reduced fuel load by newer generation engines.

An A300NEO for example flying 4000nm could carry approx 10T less fuel fuel than a normal A300. So the A310 wing would be a more appropriate size for an A300 size fuselage once you add newer engines. So the A300NEO would actually be a A310stretchNEO. They could have called it an entirely new name. It would most likely have used the A330 cockpit, A300 fuselage and tail, A310 wing and landing gear. A340advance engines.

I disagree about the A380. Development was at the exact time Airbus would want to do an A300NEO/A310NEO.

A380 development began in 2000 with first flight in 2005.
A310 production ended in 1998.
A300 production ended in 2007.
Trent 1500 proposal was in 2004 to fit onto the A340.

The A300NEO/A310NEO would have wanted to be launched in 2000-2002 for a first flight in 2005-2007. This is exactly the same time the A380 was under development. So you are definitely wrong.

The A380 killed the chance of them making a MOM aircraft. It would be selling like hotcakes now with big profit margins.

The wing, a more modern version than on the A300/310 was supposed to have a span of around 45 m. MTOW was supposed to be 173t. The A310-300 had 165 and The A300-600 had 172 for comparison. Range was estimated at 4.200 nm. Full FBW system, as on all Airbus aircraft since the A320.
That A330-100 was offered. It did not die because Airbus had no time, money or desire to build it. It did die because there was no business case, not enough airlines did want that frame. Those proposals were made well before the year 2000, before the design of the A380 went into full swing. Airlines wanted medium or big twins at that time, not small ones..

Stop rewriting history, the A331, modern A300 wing and all, was not the one that was officially offered to airlines.

In May, the 210-260 seat design had evolved towards keeping the A330 60.3m (200ft) span wing and engines for a 195t MTOW and 4,500nmi (8,325km) range. Interested customers included Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Hapag-Lloyd.[162]

Announced in July at Farnborough Air Show, the -500 first flight was targeted for early 2003 and introduction in early 2004. ILFC would take 10 if it was launched and CIT was interested too. The eight-frame shrink would carry 222 in three classes or 266 in two classes. Its initial 13,000km (7,000nm) range would be followed by derated versions for 8,000km (4,350nm).[163] The market was lukewarm as airline like Lufthansa, Hapag-Lloyd or Singapore Airlines were unimpressed by the long-range A330-500, favouring a more refined short-range design.

As it turns out, customers were interested in optimized short range variants, not the bait&switch crappy derated shrink that was finally offered. Hmm I wonder why Airbus wasn't able to spare the R&D for the former in the early 2000s...

You are mixing up the A330-100 proposal and the later A330-500 proposal. The A330-100 was for medium haul and the A330-500 was for long haul with more range than the A330-200 at that time. The A330-100 should have gotten the Trent 500 and the A330-500 would have kept the A330 standard engines.
I know that Wikipedia talks about the A330-100 evolving into the A330-500, but at that time they were two different offers the A330-100 coming earlier.
The A330-500 got some interest, nobody was interested in the medium haul A330-100.

Was the 310 really a distinct model or was it a 300 variant?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ice-62666/

viewtopic.php?t=35173

Seems there are mixed reports or an evolution in thought about which wing was to be used.

SFOA380 wrote:

Was the 310 really a distinct model or was it a 300 variant?

How many changes are required for it to be a distinct model?

The A300, A310, A330, A340 and A330NEO all share the same fuselage tube. The fuselage extensions were inserted closest to the wing and these were stronger to handle the load increase. When an updated part was created such as a new tail it was often added to the other older aircraft in production.

The A310 took the fuselage tube of the A300 and removed a few frames, any fuselage tube advancements on the A310 were then backported onto the A300 production line. The wing on the A310 is entirely new, the first supercritical design, smaller and lighter than the A300 wing but could lift just as much. The wingbox and landing gear had changed but still maintained high commonality.

An A310 stretched to A300 length would most likely have been better at short haul than an actual A300. I estimate it would have been roughly 4-5% lighter than the A300. Lift to drag would be reduced slightly but that would only apply to longer ranges. Slapping some new engines to gain a bit of range it would have been the ideal aircraft to launch 15-20 years ago.

That fuselage tube first seen in the A300 has been around for so long. I expect Airbus to release another short range aircraft with the same fuselage tube in roughly 5 years time. It will pretty much be an A330-800 with a small very high aspect ratio carbon wing using the same engines Boeing plans to use on the NMA.

Just FYI, I want to say that the most potent A310-300, at 164T, has a claimed range of 5150nm with 240pax+baggage+reserves. Max payload range is about 4000nm.

150T A310-300 max payload range is over 2800nm, while range with 240 passengers is over 4200nm.

The first A310-200 has a max payload range of just under 1500nm, and range with 230pax + baggage is 2500nm.

From a thread here about 12 years ago, the longest regularly scheduled A310 routes were between 4,000nm to 4,300nm.

I believe the A310 was hopelessly outclassed CASM wise by the new NBs of the eighties (at latest by the A321, e.g. Swissair 310 phase out -> 1995-2000, A321 phase in 1995). That relative disadvantage probably would persist vs the A321NEO.

ElpinDAB wrote:

Just FYI, I want to say that the most potent A310-300, at 164T, has a claimed range of 5150nm with 240pax+baggage+reserves. Max payload range is about 4000nm.

150T A310-300 max payload range is over 2800nm, while range with 240 passengers is over 4200nm.

The first A310-200 has a max payload range of just under 1500nm, and range with 230pax + baggage is 2500nm.

From a thread here about 12 years ago, the longest regularly scheduled A310 routes were between 4,000nm to 4,300nm.

PanAm flew the -200 nonstop from HAM to JFK, had to be the - or one of the - longest A310-200 routes at 3312nm (in reality it had to be much longer because they only had like 60 or 90 (?) min ETOPS. They had 225 seats regarding to a seatchart I found on the Internet.
But they had to stop for fuel quite often and had to block seats. In an old news article I read about PanAm offering six instead of five nonstop flights a week to meet the requirement of empty seats on that route. That sounds like a comfortable ride!
As soon as the -300 came (1987 I think) they switched to this aircraft.

30 years ago there was a period I was lucky enough to be in the cockpits of dozens of training flights with 743, DC10s, 737 classics. I remember being there on a dozen touch & go's of a A310. I remember being totally impressed by the amount of automation, flight info and smoothness of even single engine exercises compared to the other aircraft. We made a hard landing, crew checked exactly how bad while rolling, saw it was within limits & pushed the throttles to continue. It felt much more of a spacey control room. By todays standards it is old fashioned of course. They were also used intensively within europe, almost shuttle like in Germany and by leisure carriers to the South.