Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No A340 Freighter?  
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4570 times:

i realized today in my airport ops class when we were dicussing ground cargo handling that airbus does not offer a dedicated freighter version of the A340. any specific reason behind this?


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4499 times:

Airbus offers the A300 as a freighter. The A300F does a damn good job for UPS, DHL, and FedEx... and since any A340F would have basically the same capacity as a A300F, why bother with changing it?

User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4434 times:

Actually, Airbus have been mooting an A330-200F model in recent years. I have no idea how far down the pipeline this project is, but it is certainly under consideration.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 857 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4383 times:

Guess Fed Ex would jump for joy if there would be 332 ERF, I know they dont have 767F in their fleet, but alots of 300/310/MD11.....in the future perhaps!!
Hmmm, wonder how much $$$$ 380F cost for FedEx???

Michael//SE



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

The 332F is complete and ready for launch. Just needs a customer.

The A300F does a damn good job for UPS, DHL, and FedEx... and since any A340F would have basically the same capacity as a A300F, why bother with changing it?

A 340-600F would have almost double the capacity of a 300F and a lot more range.

Even the 332F would have more range, which would be a good answer to the 767F on international routes.

N


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4277 times:

Converting older airliners has proven to be much cheaper in the past then buying new freighters.

In the next few years look for a lot of 747-400 conversions to be done.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBookin From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4137 times:

There's no room for an A340F simply because Boeing did such a damn good job designing & marketing the 747F's.

And yes, converting older planes to F's is much cheaper. Any way you put, you can't get anymore bang for your buck than with a 747, for any type of aftermarket conversions; e.g.: I wanna see an A340 do this:

http://www.everzone.org/down/highaltitudedrop.wmv




B747-400LCF - B747-200ST!!
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

The point is not everyone needs a 747 sized freigher aircraft.

I'd say the success of the DC-10F and MD-11F are responsible for not requiring an A340F at this time.

That will change.

N


User currently offlineLUV4JFK From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Are you kidding? The 340-200 & -300 could barely get off the ground with passengers. I would hate to see it try to take off with loads of cargo. It might look like it's coming in for a landing instead of taking off. This isn't a bash against Airbus, but the -200 and -300 versions are known for bad climbs, however the -500 and -600 versions are much better.

LUV4JFK
 Big thumbs up



John F. Kennedy International Airport: Where America Greets The World.
User currently offlineIberia340600 From Spain, joined Oct 2003, 804 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3714 times:

What does climb have to do with it getting off the ground?? One thing is the aircraft having a slow climb....but that has nothing to do with it being able to take off.


Visca Barça!!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3507 times:

whenever Boeing finally gets around to giving the 772LRF the go-ahead... you'll more than likely see some freighter of similar size from Airbus (perhaps an A345F?)

User currently offlineAguilo From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

We'll never see an A340 freighter because the A340 is the same fuselage as the A330 with the mere addition of a 4 engine setup for extra and ultra long range flights as a safety feature. Freighters don't need this safety feature, so there is no need to waste money on maintaing a 4 engine A340 when a 2 engine A330 will haul the same cargo cheaper...

User currently offlineDABZF From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3217 times:

As far as I'm aware both 330 and 340 would have a smaller cargo capacity in weight (I would assume 340 would carry even less than 330?) than MD11F currently offers (somewhere around 94t). Also 330 would have one (or two) maindeck pallet position less but one more in lower Aft hold.

I saw a study of a 330 freighter capabilities the other day but didn't have a chance to look into details  Sad



I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3638 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3176 times:

Would the 777's (or maybe the A330/340) fuselage be TOO round for economical freight? Would they have to design all new containers just to take advantage of the more curved interior?

User currently offlineLUV4JFK From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3116 times:

What does climb have to do with getting off the ground??

Let's ask that question to all of the people who died on US Airways Express flight 5481 in Charlotte.

LUV4JFK
 Big thumbs up



John F. Kennedy International Airport: Where America Greets The World.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3066 times:

ArmitageShanks (lovely username BTW  Big grin), the A300/310 is just as round as the 330/340, so that's probably not the issue.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineWarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

Also the EK A343 which just luckily barely got off the ground in Johannesburg becasue of bad weilght distribution as they claim. I guess it's better to lift early than late.


747SP
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2972 times:

You can't really blame the A343 for bad loading.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKorg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2958 times:

I believe the A343 would make an excellent cargo aircraft if it were to have a lighter wing and 4 trent 500s wouldn't you all agree? it would be over powerd like the MD11. so that means it can take alot of weight for I would say atleast 6000nm.


Please excuse my English!
User currently offlineWarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

@Starionblue
But used as a freighter, I was trying to emphasize that the chance of bad loading maybe a very likely event and the standard A343 may not handle it well.



747SP
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2844 times:

whenever Boeing finally gets around to giving the 772LRF the go-ahead..

You're letter happy.

Such a configuration would be the 777-200F.

We'll never see an A340 freighter because the A340 is the same fuselage as the A330 with the mere addition of a 4 engine setup for extra and ultra long range flights as a safety feature.

The A340 is a heavier plane. It carries more weight longer distances. While there is a difference in engine strategy, that's not the only difference.

But used as a freighter, I was trying to emphasize that the chance of bad loading maybe a very likely event and the standard A343 may not handle it well.

Nothing would handle it well. You overload a plane, it has problems.

Let's ask that question to all of the people who died on US Airways Express flight 5481 in Charlotte.

Uh huh, what a tasteful reference.

The 340 has a slow climb, not a negative one like that Beech had.

As far as I'm aware both 330 and 340 would have a smaller cargo capacity in weight (I would assume 340 would carry even less than 330?) than MD11F currently offers (somewhere around 94t).

An A330 would have a smaller cargo capacity, yes.

An A340 would obviously have more than an A330, since the plane can hoist much more weight.

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

the A343 would make an excellent cargo aircraft if it were to have a lighter wing and 4 trent 500s wouldn't you all agree?

no



Such a configuration would be the 777-200F

Says who?

Case in point: 744ERF




User currently offlineDfwneedsQF From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2663 times:

I think an a340-600 Frieghter would scare me alot because of the length of the plane. Maybe if the converted an A340-200 it wouldn't seem so bad and it would have great range. I can see alot of cargo airlines going for this.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Case in point: 744ERF

There was already a 747-400F.

Therefore the 747-400F/ER is not the default.

The 767-300F is a 767-300ER, but only referred to as the 763F.

Letter happy old girl, aren't ya.  Laugh out loud

N


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16335 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2574 times:

In due course, it's inevitable a 343 conversion program will commence. In 10 years perhaps. Whether newbuild 343F's will happen is anyone's guess.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 25, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2457 times:

DfwneedsQF, why would the length of an A346F scare you? The An-225 is longer, and any proposed A389F will be too... Finally it's only a couple of meters longer than the 744F


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
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...
Why No A340 Freighter? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 02:02:18 by Cancidas
Why No A340-400? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 01:24:03 by Henpol747
Why No A340-500 For VS? posted Wed Mar 8 2006 00:30:20 by AirCanada014
Why No A340-400? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 19:02:15 by Dlx737200
Why No A340-400? posted Sat Dec 4 2004 14:43:00 by UnitedTristar
Why No A340 Or A320 For KLM? posted Sun Aug 22 2004 14:45:59 by Kl911
AF-Why No A340-600 posted Tue Aug 3 2004 03:05:28 by VSXA380X800
Why No A340/A330s At MEX? posted Wed Oct 22 2003 00:24:30 by Mozart
Why No 732 Freighter Conversion? posted Tue May 1 2001 14:55:19 by Ndebele
Why No More Tu-154 Freighter Conversions? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:54:56 by A342