US A333 PIT From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 310 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2676 times:
If most aspects of the A330-300 and the A340-300 are nearly identical (besides the number of engines of course), why is the range of the A343(6500-7000nm) so much greater than the A333's(5000-5500nm). I know the A340 has greater fuel capacity but where is fuel stored on the 340 where it can't be stored on the 330? And won't four engines guzzle more gas than two? Can someone please explain this to me? Much thanks.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5767 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2634 times:
I don't know. But here are my guesses:
Sure, 4 engines burn more than two. That's why they carry more fuel. Where? In the wing boxes. There are fuel tanks in the fuselage too, not just the wings. The 340 must have more of them. But remember, this is intentional, as Airbus wanted the 340 to compete with 747s and 777s to a degree. The 330 was designed with some different targets.
US A333 PIT From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2624 times:
If the A380 is a success (which it likely will be), Airbus could cut costs a great deal if they terminated production of the A340's and developed a longer range A330. Afterall, it is cheaper to build twin engine airplanes then quads. And since the A333 and A343 and A332 and A342 carry the same amount of passengers and cargo respectively, Airbus will have no need or justification for building the more expensive A34O. Am I right?
762er From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 542 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2614 times:
Are the wings on the A330 the same as the wings on the 340 or at least the same size, and are the center tanks on both types the same size? If A330's have the ability to hold as much fuel as the 340's than all they really need are more powerful engines (though they may not even need that, just increase the fuel capacity to meet the capacity of the 340 and keep everything else the same.)
Zauberfloete From Austria, joined Nov 2000, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2611 times:
"I think that if they put the tanks in the A330, it would have a very long range because it would only use half the fuel that the A340 uses"
That´s a joke?
Why on earth do you think the A340 consumes twice the fuel then the A330?
It does not. The A340 is for longe range flights equal or more fuel efficient then the A330.
The A330 and the A340 have the same wing, and the could hold the same ammount of fuel.
But the fuel capacity of the A330 is not volume restricted but weight restricted. The A330 has a lower MTOW compared to the A340, that´s why te A330 can´t hold that much fuel -> shorter range.
It would need a lot of modifictions to the A330 to give it the same range as the A340-313X.
More powerfull engines, a center - maingear strut, some improvements on the wing (due to the bigger engines..) etc.
Airbus didn´t plan that. That´s the A330/A340 concept.
You have one plane, with two engine opportunities. The twin engined version optimized for medium range, and the quad for long range.
LUFC From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2569 times:
You obviously don't have children of your own, and if you do I imagine they are quite p****d off with your attitude. Try to look at a persons profile before you conduct a reply.
That was a very reasonable comment for a 13 year old, or anyone who is not as knowlegable as you on this subject for that matter.
FLYSAB From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 106 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2560 times:
Usable fuel for the different versions of the AIRBUS widebodies : A330-200 : 139090 liters (36743 USG)
A330-300 : 97885 liters (28859 USG)
A340 : 139605 liters (36883 USG) and even a bit more (141500 liters) for more recent models.
The fuel burn rate of the 330 is a bit less than that of the 340, by about 500 Kg/hour average.
Now the 330, in a standard interior, has a dry operating weight around 125 tons, and the highest max take off weight I'm aware of is 230 tons, so it's not even able to take full fuel (110 tons) when empty. Add pax and cargo and soon this aircraft is restricted to around 80 tons of fuel, still enough to fly around 4500 nautical miles. The 340 on the other hand has a max take off weight up to 271 tons, so it can take almost full fuel and full payload at the same time, and be a really long range aircraft for missions above 6000 miles.
Of course that's probably the only reason to buy a 340, because on shorter stretches it is definitely more expensive to operate because of maintenace costs. Twice more engines, generators, oil pumps, fuel pumps, bleed valves......twice the maintenance cost for these parts.
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2512 times:
Another aspect of the "twin vs. quad" argument is the performance aspect of an engine failure.
With a twin,you lose 50% of available thrust.Most civil planes require som 40-46% of available thrust just to fly straight and level,unaccellerated flight.That leaves the twin with just 4-10% to maneouvre on after an engine failure.
The quad,on the other hand,loses only 25% of available thrust.Consequently,a 4-engined plane can be of lot more use to operators with special operating restrictions like mountains and high terrain near airports,etc.