VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41 Posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1245 times:
There has been talk from Airbus of a freight version of the A340-200. What I am wondering is how this would stack up against the MD11F, which seems very popular with freight operators. Which would offer the best payload capability, efficiency, and range (I am assuming the A340 for the latter, but who knows...)? I know that the MD11F has a wider fuselage, but then again, operators such as FedEx and UPS use the A300F with their standard containers, so this shouldn't be much of a limitation, if anything, it makes for less wasted space.
While on this topic, another thought comes to mind: why do Airbus not make a freighter of the A340-500 instead. It would offer a better payload capacity (both volumetrically and by weight), while being long range. There is a fair ammount of range which could be traded off for even more weight, making it a very nice freighter. It would also add a sales boost to the Trent A340 family. Just my 2¢!
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Ryaneverest From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1169 times:
I've read from this forum some time ago that the A330 and A340 are specifically designed for passenger operations and that they are not efficient in doing all-cargo transportation. I don't know why though, maybe the guys who had said that can stand out and point it out.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1131 times:
As much as I like the A340-200/300, I doubt its freighter capability. The weight of payload carried by a freighter is much greater than that of a pax airplane which is why when you compare pax vs freighter, for example the 747-400, the freighter version has roughly half the range. The zero fuel weight (zfw) with a fully laden freighter is very high, limiting the amount of fuel that can be carried before reaching its max takeoff weight. But though this is true of all freighters as compared to their pax counterparts, the fact that the A340-200/300 has marginal thrust from its CFM56 engines which though ok and very efficient for pax ops, would severely constrain its use as a freighter. On the other hand, the A340-5/600 might be very well suited as would be the A330-200 (IMHO a nice A300-600 successor).
Crj-900 From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1069 times:
Only info I have to offer is with regards to the containers. A300/A340/A330 are the same width, so the options for containers are a plenty. Newly desinged AXX (88"*+ 125" base) containers are shaped for the airbus widebody. These containers are half the width of the aircrafts main deck, and sit side by side.
The A330 always seemed to be a logical choice. Only problem I can see with the aircraft, is a lack of the third main gear. Thus the ramp wieght would be much lower. I would bet that if they are planning to offer new A330F's they would add the third main gear of the A340.