Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340-200 Ultra Long Range  
User currently offlineRyder10uk From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 120 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3559 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

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 2101 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3463 times:

Yes, the A340-200 was the original Airbus long range aircraft - but was built in very small numbers.

The A340-200 had a practical range of 8000nm, which was at least an hour's more flying than anything else available at the time.

Airbus flew an A340-200 on a trip around the world, stopping only once, in Auckland I believe for fuel.

Regards,
Gordon.



Statistically, people who have had the most birthdays tend to live the longest.
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3370 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
User currently offlineAZMD80 From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3192 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.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3097 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.



User currently offlineGordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 2101 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2945 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.
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6813 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2896 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.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Probably still the longest great-circle distance covered in one flight

Again... Seattle-K.L., transatlantically, tops it

...and that's just when considering commercial jets


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6813 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2671 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.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Short Routes Served By Ultra-long Range Aircraft posted Wed Aug 3 2005 11:16:14 by Afterburner
Ultra Long Range Halls Way Of The Future? posted Fri Jun 24 2005 00:10:41 by Hawker
Ultra Long Range Airplane: Market's Forecast posted Thu Feb 10 2005 02:15:43 by Anxebla
A340-200 Vs -300 Range Question posted Fri May 3 2002 23:46:51 by CF-CPI
Ultra, Ultra-long Range Craft posted Sat Apr 15 2000 21:17:41 by Louis
Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas posted Thu Oct 27 2005 06:43:09 by Sq212
A340-200, A340-313X, B777-200ER Range posted Sun Mar 3 2002 04:36:17 by Airbus Lover
What Is Better For Long Range 747, 777 Or A340? posted Mon Dec 3 2001 06:53:22 by Airbus_330_340
A330-200/A340-200 Range posted Mon Jan 24 2000 18:11:50 by CV990A
A340-200 Range posted Mon Feb 22 1999 07:26:22 by United777