Brenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1446 posts, RR: 1 Posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1800 times:
I was at HKG a couple of weeks ago, when I saw an SAA 340-something. It was either a -200 or a -300. From a distance, I couldn't tell the difference between the two. Now, I've just been presented with a picture of an SAA A340-something in the Photo Quiz, and I couldn't tell which it was.
How do you tell the difference between the two, especially head-on?
I know the A342 is the "shrink," but unless I see the two of them together, I doubt I'd be able to look at one and say "that's a -200" or "that's a -300" -- any tricks?
I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1627 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 1): (BTW- anybody a clue why the A340-300 lenght equals that of an A330-300, but NOT the A340-200 vs A330-200?)
I think that it might be due to the A342 A343 and A333 being developed at the same time, so they based two of the birds on the same fuse length. Whereas the A332 was a later shrink version of the A333 and was sized for its requirements.
This question has set me thinking as to how many differant lengths the original A300 fuse cross-section has come in, this is my guess (using wikipedia so health warning attached!):
when you look at the A342 and A332, there is only 0.6m difference, could they not have just stretched the A332 by an extra 0.6m and use a standard fuselage between the two models?
You may split the A300 out in 2 different lengths: the original design was dubbed the -B1 (only 2 built) and was shorter than the production versions -B2, -B4 and ultimately -600(R).
The first A300-B1 got scrapped, the second one however was delivered to TEA Belgium and flew for many years before it was scrapped too, so it does definitely count as a production model.
Have a look at this picture, I am sure you'll agree with me it doesn't look like an ordinary A300, nor is it a shortbodied A310.
You may split the A300 out in 2 different lengths: the original design was dubbed the -B1 (only 2 built) and was shorter than the production versions -B2, -B4 and ultimately -600(R).
The first A300-B1 got scrapped, the second one however was delivered to TEA Belgium and flew for many years before it was scrapped too, so it does definitely count as a production model.
Have a look at this picture, I am sure you'll agree with me it doesn't look like an ordinary A300, nor is it a shortbodied A310.
You learn something new every day - I didnt know that
Thanks!
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 50 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1441 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 5): the second one however was delivered to TEA Belgium and flew for many years before it was scrapped too, so it does definitely count as a production model.
It only got scrapped after it spend many years on an apron at BRU slowly rotting away . Quite a shame, IMHO, as it sure would have been nice to keep at least the second plane Airbus ever built around, given that they scrapped the first B1 so damn fast.
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 5): Have a look at this picture, I am sure you'll agree with me it doesn't look like an ordinary A300, nor is it a shortbodied A310.
Sponsor Message: 
From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1446 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4985 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, 
. Quite a shame, IMHO, as it sure would have been nice to keep at least the second plane Airbus ever built around, given that they scrapped the first B1 so damn fast.
Printer friendly format 
