Ryder10uk From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 120 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2458 times:
the A340-500 is said to be a break through in ultra long range aircraft, but corect me if im wrong the 200 serries isnt far behid and has been around for years
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2269 times:
Gordon - yup, they flew an A340-200 TLS-AKL, with WorldRanger titles on the aircraft. I was lucky enough to be at Auckland Airport that evening, saw it come in, and even sat in on the press conference (ah they joys of being a child...). I was even able to have a quick word to the flight crew. I was quite saddened to learn, some time later, that the Captain (and I think maybe some others too) were on the A330 prototype when it crashed (the next year I believe).
V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
AZMD80 From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 289 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2091 times:
The aircraft has not been a good sell number becouse of the seat per mile cost. The cost of the plane was similar to 343 but can carry less pax.
A345 has a bit more range with more pax than A343, so with a seat per mile by far lower.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1996 times:
The A340-200 had a practical range of 8000nm
Not really.
Only a single A342 ever built would have had that range in pax configuration, and it never entered pax service. Instead it was used as a private aircraft for the Sultan of Brunei's brother.
Gordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 1995 posts, RR: 24 Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
Only a single A342 ever built would have had that range in pax configuration, and it never entered pax service.
Airbus offered the 275t MTOW as an option to all customers, but it was simply never taken up because like the A340-500 - it had very few practical uses. Although it should be noted that Airbus still offer a conversion program for existing -211/212 airframes to upgrade them to the -213 standard - and at least 2 of these conversions have been completed in the last few years.
Incidentally I doubt the A340-500 will have a seat/mile cost much lower than either the A340-200 or -300. Reason being that while the A340-500 carries a few more passengers (about 15 more I think in a typical config), it burns much more fuel, carries less freight and weighs a whopping 40,000kg more than an A340-300 when empty!
It's really only useful on ultra long range routes of greater than 7000nm, other than that the A340-300 makes much more economic sense IMO.
Regards,
Gordon.
Statistically, people who have had the most birthdays tend to live the longest.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1795 times:
"they flew an A340-200 TLS-AKL"
As I recall it was Le Bourget to Auckland and back. Probably still the longest great-circle distance covered in one flight, tho at least three flights have flown farther overall.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
AFAIK none of the longer flights covered a longer distance, measuring along the great circle between the endpoints. Not the Kadena-Torrejon B-52H, nor Voyager (obviously) nor the MH 777.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 120 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 1995 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, 
From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 289 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
