FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1979
1979 - 2092.PDF
\ 2006 FLIGHT International, 9 June 1979 767/A310 DATA (Basic) Boeing 767-200 (Option) (-200) Airbus A310 (-300) Length Span Height Wing area Aspect ratio Max take-off weight Max landing weight Max -fuel weight Operating empty weight Max fuel capacity Passengers (mixed-class) Design range (max pax load) Powerplant Cruise Mach/alt 159ft 2in (48-53m) 155ft Oin (47-26m) 52ft Oin (15-85m) 3,040 sq ft (282-6m2) 7-90 300,000lb (136,116kg) 270,0001b (122,505kg) 248,000lb (112,523kg) 180,1301b (81,729kg) 106,7301b (48,413kg) 221 2,740 n.m. x JT9D-7R4D;48,OO0lb 280,000lb (127,042kg) 255,000lb (115,699kg) 240,000lb (108,893kg) 179,7501b (81,556kg) 77,036lb (34,943kg) 1,990 n.m. < JT9D-7R4A, 44,300lb CF6-80A, 48,000lb 0-8/35-39,000ft 0-8/39,000ft 153ft 1 in (46 65m) 144ft Oin (43-90m) 51ft 10in (15-81m) 2,357 sq ft(219-0m2) 8-8 291,0001b (132,000kg) 261,2501b (118,500kg) 239,200!b (108,500kg) 167,3691b (75,918kg) 310,0001b (140,600kg) 266,750lb (121,000kg) 244,700lb (110,000kg) 168,6911b (76,518kg) 98r400lb (43,000kg) 214 3,012 n.m. 3,530 n.m. 2 % CF6-80A, 48,000lb or 2 x JT9D-7R4C, 46,900lb or 2 x RB.211-524B4(D4), 48,000lb* 0'78/35,000ft •Increases empty weights by 4,000lb (1,814kg) eludes the use of Kevlar (a compo site similar to glass-fibre but using a man-made fibre developed by Du Pont instead of glass) in flap track fairings, the fin leading edge, wing/ fuselage fairing, undercarriage doors (or possibly carbon-fibre composites for the latter). Carbon-fibre will be used for the tailplane/fuselage fair ing, rudder, spoilers, and floor beam struts. Later, composites may be introduced for flap tracks, finbox and elevator. While detail design changes and improvements in systems, avionics and structure will continue through out development, the basic parameters of both 767 and A310 have now been fixed. Both companies have extended the payload/range envelopes of their types since they were launched. Air- 80000- 70 000- bus has dropped the 268,0001b gross weight A310-100 and now offers the -200 (291,0001b) and -300 (310,0001b). Boeing has made the one-stop trans continental, 280,0001b 767 (as ordered by United) an option and standard ised on the US non-stop transconti nental (for American and Delta) at 300,0001b. The transcontinental 767 and A310-200 are head-on competitors and, although the latter is currently superior on paper, Boeing can be ex pected to match the Airbus product to capture more non-US customers. For those airlines which want some thing more akin to the defunct A310- 100, Airbus offers a lighter -200, which has been chosen by Lufthansa to reduce landing fees at European airports. So far, the Boeing and Airbus 200- 60 000 50 000 £ 40 000- 30 000- 20 000 10 000 1000 2000 3000 Range (n.m.) The data table (top) and payloadjrange chart (above) have been compiled from the manufacturers' latest brochures. Although both A3I0 versions seem a strong match for Boeing's product, the 767 scores on field length—it can lift maximum take-off weight out of a 5,000ft-high field (such as Denver) on an 84"F (28°C) day. Both models of the A310 have the same maximum fuel capacity but the -300 is beefed up so that this can be carried with maximum payload seaters have sold almost exclusively in their "home" markets. Boeing seems to have been denied any signifi cant European orders. Indeed, so strong is Airbus' grip on Europe that KLM gave one of its reasons for not choosing the Boeing 767 as "not want ing to be the only carrier in Europe with the type"—it must be many a long year since Boeing has had to suffer such an indignity. Boeing's greatest problem is also Airbus's strongest marketing aid for the A310 —the A300. Last year, Airbus sold 70 A300s and the first five months of 1979 have seen orders for another 38 of the type. Once an airline has gone for the A300, the natural choice for a 200-seater running mate is the A310. Boeing lacks an aircraft which can compete with the A300, which re mains number one in a field of one— cheaper to operate than the big tri- jets but in a higher-capacity class than the 767 or A310. It remains to be seen how long Boeing can resist launching a stretched 767. At the moment, Boeing's public statements make no reference to such a development and the com pany's planning beyond the 767 appears to be concentrating on the 777 long-range trijet. The future of this project is less certain now that American has rejected it in favour of a transcontinental 767. The 777 would require a major development effort from Boeing, already com mitted to spending $3,000 million on the 757 and 767. A 767 stretch would be relatively cheap and simple, and the existing wing could easily accom modate a fuselage five to six seat rows longer. Extra fuel in the centre- section would produce an aircraft able to match or outperform the A300B4 and would give Airbus Industrie some severe headaches. A punter would do well to put money on a stretched 767 appearing long before the 777. For the time being, however, Air bus is sitting pretty. A310 develop ment costs have been estimated at $900 million, plus $100 million for development of features common to *- page 2011
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
