Talk:Airbus A310

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Accident Summary[edit]

Presumably the 9 July crash in Siberia is not included in the hull losses and fatalities figure. VoxLuna 19:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo bias[edit]

There's too many "pretty" profile photos. Article needs less of them and more interior cabin or flight deck shots, and perhaps a closeup or two of an interesting feature of the aircraft. -Rolypolyman (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have any suitable non pretty images then you are welcome to add them. The only reason none are present is that they are none available in WikipediaCommons to use and we are reliant on users to upload suitable images to Commons so they can be added. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Correctamundo... that's why I'm putting the call out, so to speak. -Rolypolyman (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


This is not a history, it doesn't give any details of the type's development, launch, production, etc. - these ARE interesting details, and the German version, for instance, does provide them. (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress and is never complete, you are welcome to add any properly sourced and notable information to the article. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


A310-308 (CF6-80C2A8) is missing in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


This is not a discussion Sp33dyphil ReadytoRumble 10:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • April 1978: Hanover Air Show, exhibition of model Airbus A310
  • 1978: BAe announced intentions of rejoinng at Farnborough Air Show
  • 9 June 1978: Swissair and Lufthansa developed joint specification for aircraft
  • 1 January 1979: BAe rejoined Airbus
May 1979: Belairbus joined Airbus
  • 15 March 1978: Swissair placed firm order for 10 aircraft; Lufthansa, Air France and Iberia followed
  • 7 July 1978: Airbus launched A310 programme
  • 1 April 1979: Lufthansa raised commitments to 25 firm & 25 options
  • 3 April 1979: KLM placed order
  • 6 July 1979: Air France raised orders
  • Throughout 1979: Martinair, Sabena and Air Afrique placed orders

Size of shrink[edit]

It's a bit murky to say that the plane is 12 frames shorter than the A300B series. To produce the A310, Airbus pulled 14 frames out the A300B4, then relocated the rear bulkhead further aft in order to make more space within the cabin. The cabin may be the equivalent of 12 frame pitches shorter, but the plane is shorter by 14 frames overall. Sacxpert (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


I,ve re-assessed this article as there are style issues and new material added requiring references/citationsPetebutt (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A310 Wing design[edit]

I remember when this aircraft was introduced and it was claimed to have the most advanced wing in the world at that time. It was a supercritical section in the days when that was comparatively rare. It was described as "a completely clean wing", having no wing fences or vortex generators. Interestingly, it also had no outboard ailerons, a fact confirmed by the photo of the Tarom aircraft in the article.

I raise this because I think it would make a useful addition to the article. It was certainly a major part of Airbus Industrie's sales pitch and as far as I know, remains unique in modern aircraft design. I remember it being hailed as revolutionary by aviation cognoscenti of the time. Can anyone confirm this?

This article has some excellent and relevant information:

I used to have some Airbus Industrie advertising material which related to the A310 but I'm having trouble locating it. Flanker235 (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

150 or 153 people on board Yemenia Flight 626?[edit]

I saw that the 2 sources for the Yemenia Flight 626 accident somewhat conflict each other, one saying 150 people on board and the other saying that there was 153 people on board; can someone clarify which one is correct? I can make the necessary corrections on the accident summary and this articles.

Thanks. (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The official accident report says 153. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but is there an english version of this? This one is not in english and I was planning to add this to the list of references. (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Seating capacity[edit]

The seating capacity figures seem high, some are close to the lager A300. 180/190 3 class and 200/210 2 class seems more typical with 280 being the certified maximum. (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Airbus A310/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

not much to it. Is that because its just a derivitive of the A300? Specs need updateing and references are required. Trivia should be merged. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 06:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead picture[edit]

The current image is clean but the side pictures are a bit boring, I propose to change it to a front/side picture, showing more of the structure:

If you're interested in more, I made a gallery of suitable ones in User:Marc_Lacoste/sandbox/A310 --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the current image as far as I see, boring is not a selection crieria. Out of interest are you going to ask to change every airliner lead image I dont believe they are all that bad. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to perfect airliners specs. I went through Airbus so far, I should begin Boeings soon. As I did this, I wanted to enhance the pictures of the articles. Often the lead pic is just the one available a few years ago, but WP commons went much bigger since and there is often more interesting pictures than the current one. Plus I'll admit, I prefer when it is the most common sight (version/operator), but I understand it's not a sufficient reason to change the lead pic, so I must find the best pictures first. I earn some of my living with photography, I'm perhaps a little bit too much interested in this :). And I just found the excellent to go through WP commons categories! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

done--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a better one : more level, over clouds. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)