Tweet
The A310 has always been a dumpy looking aircraft. Certainly in comparison to its rivals, the 757 and 767-200, it doesn't strike you as a looker, however in the right light it still has a certain majesty about it. The A310 is obviously a shortened version of the A300 and represents possibly the only time I can think of that a model has been shortened and been a sales success (except for 737-500 and A319 too now I think about it).
Produced in two versions the series 200 was a widebody equivalent of the 757 (and an equivalent of the 767-200) whilst the series 300 was a match for the longer 757 routes and the 767-200ER. So it is against the Boeing relatives that it be best judged.
255 A310s were made between 1983 and 1998 - so not staggering numbers but decent enough given Airbuses relative position at the time, the low dev costs and the 767-200s 249 sales. It certainly held its own, winning the European trunk routes order battle (purchases by Swissair, KLM, Lufthansa, Air France, Sabena, THY) and doing ok across the Atlantic (prior to the US Majors throwing their 757s en-masse onto these routes post 9/11). It proved a good type for several of the smaller European nationals wanting to fly long-haul ops (CSA, Austrian, TAP, Tarom for example) and a precursor for later sales of A330s/340s. In the end I expect it was the larger A300-600R and 767-300ER that probably killed both their smaller cousins since their CASM must be much better.
Comparing it with the 757 and 767:
A310 vs 767-200 vs 757 by rstretton, on Flickr
It looks pretty decent in terms of performance, though the 767-200ER does appear better in that it has a lower empty weight, better MTOW and longer range. One thing that stands out is the dumpy proportions which make for a roomy wide fuselage plus its relatively small wing.
Models
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1:400 the A310 has been rather poorly treated despite there being no less than 4 moulds. Dragon Wings mould has chunky undercarriage and looks a bit dumpy, Jet-X's is a misshapen lump whilst Herpa's example is ok but just not right somehow. That leaves Gemini to take a rare prize for the best mould, though they too have been guilty - this time for some very poor cockpit window printing.
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
52 A310s have been made in total - unfortunately the majority are rubbish.
Gemini have made 15 examples and updated the mould with rolling gears. When they get it right (Thai Airways, PIA, Martinair, Delta, Lufthansa, BCal, FedEx) they get it very right. Only once have they got it wrong (KLM) and here they made a real hash of it. The nosegear of the rolling gear versions looks a bit big but otherwise top marks to Gemini.
Phoenix look like they have also used the Gemini mould for 4 releases and JC Wings for 1 unless I'm mistaken.
Jet-X / Blue box have done 12 releases but their mould looks misshapen and has very unsightly wing/fuselages seams. Again their KLM is particularly poor.
Dragon have made 15 A310s but the mould isn't up to modern standards and again the cockpit windows are regularly poorly printed. Annoyingly they are the only ones to have made Pan Am examples.
Herpa being Herpa have only made 5 versions. There mould is passable but I still wouldn't buy it. They are the only ones to have done Swissair.
Of the 52 made I only would buy the 20 Gemini/Phoenix/JC versions and many of these are too modern for my liking so I only own 3 - Delta, BCal, Martinair. The Delta is a series 300 with wingtip fences whilst the other two are 200s without them.
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
Produced in two versions the series 200 was a widebody equivalent of the 757 (and an equivalent of the 767-200) whilst the series 300 was a match for the longer 757 routes and the 767-200ER. So it is against the Boeing relatives that it be best judged.
255 A310s were made between 1983 and 1998 - so not staggering numbers but decent enough given Airbuses relative position at the time, the low dev costs and the 767-200s 249 sales. It certainly held its own, winning the European trunk routes order battle (purchases by Swissair, KLM, Lufthansa, Air France, Sabena, THY) and doing ok across the Atlantic (prior to the US Majors throwing their 757s en-masse onto these routes post 9/11). It proved a good type for several of the smaller European nationals wanting to fly long-haul ops (CSA, Austrian, TAP, Tarom for example) and a precursor for later sales of A330s/340s. In the end I expect it was the larger A300-600R and 767-300ER that probably killed both their smaller cousins since their CASM must be much better.
Comparing it with the 757 and 767:
A310 vs 767-200 vs 757 by rstretton, on FlickrIt looks pretty decent in terms of performance, though the 767-200ER does appear better in that it has a lower empty weight, better MTOW and longer range. One thing that stands out is the dumpy proportions which make for a roomy wide fuselage plus its relatively small wing.
Models
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1:400 the A310 has been rather poorly treated despite there being no less than 4 moulds. Dragon Wings mould has chunky undercarriage and looks a bit dumpy, Jet-X's is a misshapen lump whilst Herpa's example is ok but just not right somehow. That leaves Gemini to take a rare prize for the best mould, though they too have been guilty - this time for some very poor cockpit window printing.
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on FlickrGemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr52 A310s have been made in total - unfortunately the majority are rubbish.
Gemini have made 15 examples and updated the mould with rolling gears. When they get it right (Thai Airways, PIA, Martinair, Delta, Lufthansa, BCal, FedEx) they get it very right. Only once have they got it wrong (KLM) and here they made a real hash of it. The nosegear of the rolling gear versions looks a bit big but otherwise top marks to Gemini.
Phoenix look like they have also used the Gemini mould for 4 releases and JC Wings for 1 unless I'm mistaken.
Jet-X / Blue box have done 12 releases but their mould looks misshapen and has very unsightly wing/fuselages seams. Again their KLM is particularly poor.
Dragon have made 15 A310s but the mould isn't up to modern standards and again the cockpit windows are regularly poorly printed. Annoyingly they are the only ones to have made Pan Am examples.
Herpa being Herpa have only made 5 versions. There mould is passable but I still wouldn't buy it. They are the only ones to have done Swissair.
Of the 52 made I only would buy the 20 Gemini/Phoenix/JC versions and many of these are too modern for my liking so I only own 3 - Delta, BCal, Martinair. The Delta is a series 300 with wingtip fences whilst the other two are 200s without them.
Gemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on FlickrGemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on FlickrGemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on FlickrGemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on FlickrGemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on FlickrGemini Jets Airbus A310-200/300s by rstretton, on Flickr
Comment