Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Difference Between The A330 And A340  
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2819 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6405 times:

My impressions of the two, was that the A330 was a midsized medium range aircraft, a competitor to the 767, and the A340 was a large long range aircraft, a competitor to the 777.

Having read the entries in the a/c data section, I'm now confused.

It seems that the A333 and the A342 although the A342 has longer range. Is the extra pair of engines just to carry the extra fuel needed for the longer range or did the lack of ETOPS mean that Airbus put them there to make the aircraft viable for long haul?

The A332 is a shrink of the A333 and medium range. The A343 is a stretch of the A342 and has slightly shorter range.

Then there's the A340NG, which offers more range and more capacity to compete with the 773.

So there seems to be four fuselages involved. The base fuselage is used by the A333 (medium range), A342 (long range) and A345 (ultra long range). The shrink fuselage is used by the A332 (medium range). A stretched fuselage is used by the A343 (long range) and a further stretch is used by the A346 (long range).

Actually, writing this out seems to make it make more sense. Where do the Boeing's fit into this picture and what about the A350?

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFLYtoEGCC From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 947 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6374 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
The A343 is a stretch of the A342 and has slightly shorter range.

This was the case with the original models. The A340-311 had shorter range than the A340-200 models. When the A340-313X came out, with its performance and range improvements, it pretty much made the A340-200 obsolete.

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
Is the extra pair of engines just to carry the extra fuel needed for the longer range or did the lack of ETOPS mean that Airbus put them there to make the aircraft viable for long haul?

Well, the engines themselves don't carry fuel, it's mainly contained in the wings and centre fuselage sections (which are the same on the A330 and A340-200/300), so I doubt that's the reason; however, I'm fairly sure the A330 was designed with ETOPS in mind from the outset, so I don't think this is an issue here either. It must be something to do with efficiency of 2 vs 4 engines and the associated weight, although what exactly I'm not sure.

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
The A332 is a shrink of the A333 and medium range.

I may be mis-interpreting what you're saying here, but just to clarify, the A330-200 has longer range than the -300. However, the A340-300 has a longer range than the A330-200, despite having a longer fuselage. It depends on the whole package, not just length of fuselage.

With regards to your last question about the A350, I'm not sure.



Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away...
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2819 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6332 times:

Quoting FLYtoEGCC (Reply 1):
This was the case with the original models. The A340-311 had shorter range than the A340-200 models. When the A340-313X came out, with its performance and range improvements, it pretty much made the A340-200 obsolete.

Was this one of those cases where manufacturer used to release early variant and then release slightly improved ones which lasted for the long term, like the 737-200 after the 737-100 and the 772ER after the 772A?

Quoting FLYtoEGCC (Reply 1):
Well, the engines themselves don't carry fuel,

I didn't mean that. I meant that carrying extra fuel would add to the TOW and so the extra engines would be required to give the necessary extra thrust.

Quoting FLYtoEGCC (Reply 1):
I'm fairly sure the A330 was designed with ETOPS in mind from the outset, so I don't think this is an issue here either.

I'm probably getting it a bit wrong, but I thought that the 777 was the first to be designed with ETOPS in mind from the outset. It was the first to receive early ETOPS IIRC. If you're right, then we get back into the big question about why Airbus did their 4 engines 4 long haul routine.

Quoting FLYtoEGCC (Reply 1):
It must be something to do with efficiency of 2 vs 4 engines and the associated weight, although what exactly I'm not sure.

I get mixed messages about that. Some say that twin are more fuel efficient. Some say quads are.

Quoting FLYtoEGCC (Reply 1):
I may be mis-interpreting what you're saying here, but just to clarify, the A330-200 has longer range than the -300.

I noticed that, but I think they're of a similar class of range. Although I really don't know where medium range ends and long range begins. I think the A333 was something like 4500NM, while the A332 was a little over 5000NM.

Quoting FLYtoEGCC (Reply 1):
However, the A340-300 has a longer range than the A330-200, despite having a longer fuselage. It depends on the whole package, not just length of fuselage.

The one thing I did get was that it seemed that the A340 variants were well into the long range realm while the A330s had a few thousands miles less range.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6313 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 2):
It was the first to receive early ETOPS IIRC.

Almost. It was the first to receive ETOPS180 approval and certification at EIS.

Quoting Glom (Reply 2):
If you're right, then we get back into the big question about why Airbus did their 4 engines 4 long haul routine.

...because there weren't engines with 70,000lbs+ coupled with growth capability, when the A340 was designed.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2819 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6049 times:

Done some more reading and it's look like I got a bit confused. The 333 and the 343 have the same capacity and the 332 and 342 are shrinks of their respective types. The 345 is a small stretch of the 343 and the 346 is a large stretch.

It seems that the 340NGs are the ones of relevance at the moment, probably brought out in the competition to the 777 (the A345 seems to go up against the 772LR and the A346 against the 773ER) and in that case, the A340s are bigger than the A330s.

Although it seems that wasn't always the case. The early A340s were similar in size to the A330s, the only difference being the range. The entry writes that they added the two extra engines to facilitate compatibility with long haul.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26593 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5854 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
The entry writes that they added the two extra engines to facilitate compatibility with long haul.

Remember, they did not just add 2 engines, those engines have about half the power of each A330 engine and are made by a completely different manufacturer. The A340 basically has 4 737/A32S engines lifting a very heavy aircraft.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12254 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5792 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

The A340 carries two spare engines  Wink


911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3539 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5765 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 6):
The A340 carries two spare engines

No, the A343 carries five APUs.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3593 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5734 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
Actually, writing this out seems to make it make more sense.

You managed to lose me, but I didn't get enough sleep last night.

After reading it, it seems more like Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first" "I Dunno" "Third Base"

Cheers.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5695 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
The early A340s were similar in size to the A330s, the only difference being the range.

True for the A333/A343, not true for the A332/A342; as the A340-200 has a unique fuselage length which none of the other A330s/A340 shares.

For all practical purposes though, the difference in dimension between A332 and A342 is minimal.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5680 times:

Apparently, the idea was that the 2 engines of the A330 offered a better take off performance than the A340, thus burnt less fuel on take off. But the four engines of the A340 burnt less inflight due to their low thrust. So the further the A340 flew the more efficient it became compared to it's sister ship, and at a certain point (Roughly 4000nm's) the efficiencies switched over.

One problem is that the A340's climb rate is so poor, it can't climb as fast to more efficient altitudes when cruising, compared to most of the other airliners around today.

[Edited 2005-05-12 21:16:58]

User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5636 times:

I am wondering if Airbus has ever contemplated an A330-400....with a couple of enormous GE90s or Trents under the wing.....
However, I have noticed the A330 sits lower than the 777, hence a complete modification of the landing gear, and wing might make it cost prohibitive....OR...is that what the A350 is intended to accomplish?

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
Having read the entries in the a/c data section, I'm now confused.

Don't worry, to us casual enthusiasts....the details can be overwhelming..I too am confused 87% of the time on the nuances of each range of aircraft families.....



Delete this User
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5554 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 11):
I am wondering if Airbus has ever contemplated an A330-400....with a couple of enormous GE90s or Trents under the wing.....

Not only would the landing gear have to be strengthened (and a center bogie added to handle increased MTOW, thus impacting fuel/cargo space)....

....but the wing (which, if you'll recall, is modified to suite the A340"classic" as well) would no doubt need fortification as well. Then, they'd have to certify the airframe to that engine type, then seek approval for that airframe/engine combo for ETOPS, then secure a launch customer.

In other words, not worth it.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2819 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 10):
So the further the A340 flew the more efficient it became compared to it's sister ship, and at a certain point (Roughly 4000nm's) the efficiencies switched over.

There it is again. Some say that a twin burns less fuel than a quad. Which is it?


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5445 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 13):
There it is again. Some say that a twin burns less fuel than a quad. Which is it?

I'm not sure what RJ111 is talking about exactly, but I would like to point out that efficency does not simply mean fuel burn rate. Other operating factors apply, like MTOW, etc.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineGasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5292 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 7):
No, the A343 carries five APUs.

The most powerul of which is located just beneath the tail.  Smile


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5216 times:

Thanks for the question, Glom - before, I'd assumed that ETOPS was a recent change in regulations, allowing twins to operate on long over-ocean routes.

Turns out that ETOPS approval has been available for quite a long time; but the reliability of everything - not just the engines, but the overall design, the systems, even a given airline's maintenance arrangements - has to be at a very high standard. And any 'incident' can mean that ETOPs approval is withdrawn. An additional problem is that approvals have to be sought country by country.

So, at the time the A340 was conceived, four medium-sized engines must have looked like the most sensible and flexible design option for a midsized longhaul, and it was the one Airbus chose. Boeing seem to have chosen the more adventurous course, presumably because their initial big twin designs were so promising.

Since then, of course, rising costs (not just fuel, but maintenance costs as well) would appear to have made big twins the better choice - PROVIDED that the high levels of reliability required for ETOPS approval can be achieved and maintained.

Link to quite a good article below. Among other things, it says that ETOPS safety standards are likely soon to be applied to three- and four-engined aircraft as well:-

"This ETOPS policy is initially a slight disadvantage to the Boeing 777 relative to the Airbus 340 competition. However, it was proposed that this rule be extended to long haul operations of two engine jets to three and four engine airplanes. This policy shift by FAA, if adopted, would force the four-engine Airbus 340 and Boeing 747 to meet the same safety requirement of the twin engine Boeing 777.

"The Airbus 340 versus Boeing 777 debates have quite often made Airbus to argue that its A340 is more reliable, affordable and safer than the Boeing 777. The ETOPS policy has tacitly supported Airbus’s position even though studies indicated that the Boeing 777 had suffered less engine failures and diversions than the Airbus 340.

"However, Airbus may need to change its marketing pitches if the FAA adopts the recommendations of the extended range twin-operations working group soon. ETOPS rules mandate strict maintenance requirement, extra reserve fuel and additional cargo-fire-suppression equipment. FAA have noted that three and four-engine jets traveling long distances have been exempt from such additional safety rules since the air carrier jet era began. It was concluded by the working group that it is in the flying public's best interest to extend these rules to all long-range commercial aircraft as well."


http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/asetops.htm#What



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2819 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5076 times:

So fuel costs are lower with a twin. Or are they? I'm so confused.

User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5047 times:

I found some technical data:

http://membres.lycos.fr/avioncivil/a330%20a340%20VS%20b777/Avsb.htm

Interesting.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4889 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 2):

Quoting FLYtoEGCC (Reply 1):
It must be something to do with efficiency of 2 vs 4 engines and the associated weight, although what exactly I'm not sure.

I get mixed messages about that. Some say that twin are more fuel efficient. Some say quads are.

It depends on the mission, operator, etc. Hard to make a blanket statement.

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
Done some more reading and it's look like I got a bit confused. The 333 and the 343 have the same capacity and the 332 and 342 are shrinks of their respective types. The 345 is a small stretch of the 343 and the 346 is a large stretch.

Also, the 340-500 and -600 have a tapered wing insert, giving them more chord, span and wing area. It's more accurate to say that the 346 is a stretch of the 343 and the 345 is a shring of the 346.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 10):
Apparently, the idea was that the 2 engines of the A330 offered a better take off performance than the A340, thus burnt less fuel on take off. But the four engines of the A340 burnt less inflight due to their low thrust. So the further the A340 flew the more efficient it became compared to it's sister ship, and at a certain point (Roughly 4000nm's) the efficiencies switched over.

Exactly. Also, remember that when the 330/340 were being developed, huge engines like the GE-90 and ETOPS180 were only at the concept stage so it would have been very difficult to make an very long range airliner like the 340 with two engines. Just a few years later, when Boeing was designing the 777, things had changed.

Quoting Glom (Reply 13):
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 10):
So the further the A340 flew the more efficient it became compared to it's sister ship, and at a certain point (Roughly 4000nm's) the efficiencies switched over.

There it is again. Some say that a twin burns less fuel than a quad. Which is it?

It depends  Wink



"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...
What Is The Difference Between An A330&A340? posted Sun Sep 17 2000 21:01:50 by Jm-airbus320
The Difference Between The A330 And A340 posted Tue May 10 2005 23:05:41 by Glom
Difference Between A330 And A340 posted Sun Feb 8 2004 01:58:53 by Cory6188
A330 And A340: Which Looks The Best? posted Thu Oct 16 2003 13:15:01 by Pe@rson
Why Both The A330 And A340? posted Thu Dec 9 1999 00:42:09 by HZ-AKF
Differences Between A330 And A340 posted Thu Jun 8 2006 08:46:36 by Flywithjohn
Why The Difference Between EK's A345 And B773ERs posted Wed Feb 1 2006 00:01:00 by FlyingHippo
Whats The Difference Between MD-82 And MD-88? posted Sat Nov 22 2003 01:36:12 by Delta777Jet
What´s The Difference Between A321-100 And -200? posted Thu Dec 7 2000 12:21:37 by Airsicknessbag
The Difference Between FAR 121 And 135 Ops posted Sat Aug 5 2000 03:00:35 by DesertJets