Qatar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
The A340-300 uses CFM56-5C engines rated from 31,200lb to 34,000lb. Many consider the A343 underpowered and some operators have complained about the poor performance of the A343. Airbus came up with the A345/A346 to improve on the A343 that is why many airlines like VS and AC have ordered the A35/A346 to replace their current fleet of A343s. But there is a problem, let's say a carrier is doing ~3500nm routes like VS with thier A343s and so the A345 would be to heavy to do that route because it was designed for longer routes and the A346 might have to much unneeded capacity.
So that brings me to my question, Why didn't airbus design an A340-400 with perhaps less power than the 53000-56000lbs RR Tent 553/558 but still use the same capacity as the A343 and higher rated (37,000lb-43,000lbs) engines like the PW2000 series which powers the 757, IL96M. That would mean the aircraft won't be overpowered like the A345/A346 but still improve on the A343's performance. Also the PW engines may attract operators like NW which prefer P&W over other manufacturers.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
If the A340-300 is not underpowered then why is Singapore Airlines getting rid of it's entire fleet of CFM56-5C powered A340-300s for RR Trent powered A340-500s & 777-200ERs?
Bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5977 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
TEDSKI,
Maybe the newer aircraft are better suited to their need? Does your rationalization mean that every time a carrier orders a new aircraft, it means the older aircraft are underpowered?
Qatar,
The members of this forum though generally well informed about aviation do not speak for the carriers. No matter how many times a subject is mentioned on this forum,it does not make it a fact.
Qatar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2098 times:
What i was saying, is that some posts on A.net by other members claim that airlines complain about the poor performance of the A343.
Look at the thrust per pax figures (3-class) for the A343 (461lbs of thrust per pax) and for the A345, also in 3-class layout (677lbs of thrust per pax) that is an increase of 47%. It means that airbus has replied to customer input.
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
TEDSKI:
SIA is getting rid of the A343 because they thik the 777 is better suited for their routes. However, they need the extra long range of the A345 to make Singapore-US non-stop.
GOT
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
Racko, Aviation Week & Space Technology has written extensively about the "sedate" climb performance of the A343. They had an article about Singapore's experience with slow climb performance over the Bay of ______(I forgot the name of the body of water over which they climb on their way to Europe). The A343's were subjected to more poor weather for longer down low while climbing compared to the 777's. Does that help support some of the comments.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
Eg777er, what if Airbus were to attach the wings from the A340-500/600 to the fuselage of the A340-300 and offer PW2000 & RB211 engines designating it the A340-400?
KFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2004 times:
"Eg777er, what if Airbus were to attach the wings from the A340-500/600 to the fuselage of the A340-300 and offer PW2000 & RB211 engines designating it the A340-400?"
TEDSKI, it is alot more complicated than just slapping on a pair of wings! Major costly design work would have to be done before any new wing could be fitted with the A343 body. Anyway, I believe that RB's or 2000's on an A340 would suffer from poor fuel efficiency compared to the CFM's. Remember, AI 1st proposed the A340 with the larger V2500 variant (I think it was called the "SuperFan" or something like that.) AI had to go with CFM after IAE backed out. Mabye the A340 would have been better off with the IAE's?
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
What is going on over at GE/Snecma regarding the TECH56 project? Will this project get more power out of the CFM56-5C of around 40,000lbs which will help the A340-200/300 models climb better with a full load on board?
Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
Remember China Airlines A340-300X took off on a taxiway in ANC with almost full load and cargo and full fuel for flight back to Taipei in only 6000ft although it did hit the grass but how is that underpowered? i agree abt the extra mass on SQ's A343 in addition to the heavier furniture in First and their luxurious Biz class.
Rlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 989 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1925 times:
You people do not seem to get it.
If a 340 took off in front of a 767 fully loaded on the way to say, fl330. by the time the aribus gets that high the 767 has been there for 20 minutes and is 100mi. down the road.
TSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
"Eg777er, what if Airbus were to attach the wings from the A340-500/600 to the fuselage of the A340-300 and offer PW2000 & RB211 engines designating it the A340-400?"
TEDSKI, it is alot more complicated than just slapping on a pair of wings! Major costly design work would have to be done before any new wing could be fitted with the A343 body. Anyway, I believe that RB's or 2000's on an A340 would suffer from poor fuel efficiency compared to the CFM's. Remember, AI 1st proposed the A340 with the larger V2500 variant (I think it was called the "SuperFan" or something like that.) AI had to go with CFM after IAE backed out. Mabye the A340 would have been better off with the IAE's?
-Tom
Why bother to put the A340-500/600 wing on the A343 body when the A345 is only something like 5 or 6 frames longer than the A343?
Still I understand what people are saying that there is a big jump between the CFM56s and the Trent 500s. The gap is even bigger if you consider that the Trents are basically derated but I would expect that that contributes to their fuel efficiency and reliability.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1862 times:
I hope that with the TECH56 project that GE/SNECMA are working on will increase the power of their CFM56-5C to around 40,000lbs thrust which will help the A340-200/300 models takeoff quicker with a full load on board.
KFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
"I hope that with the TECH56 project that GE/SNECMA are working on will increase the power of their CFM56-5C to around 40,000lbs thrust which will help the A340-200/300 models takeoff quicker with a full load on board."
TEDSKI, even if the "TECH56" project was proved successful and tested on the A343 frame, I doubt there would be much interest if any atall. It's really too late with the A345/A346 now on the market. Plus, I don't think an extensive re-engine program for such a new type would be cost-efficient in the airlines view.
0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 261 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1816 times:
TEDSKI -
You seem to have one mission in life: Re-iterating your belief that the 340 is failure because of its "Slow take-off performance". You consistently support your argument with SQ's swap. I may count more than a 100 posts by you stating the same old stuff. (and yeah, the only cure for OA is to get rid of the 340s and get anything else, from 744 to 346 to 763).
Two suggestions:
(a) take Economics 101. Perhaps it could be useful to your life, too.
(b) learn that a plane's mission is to get from point A to point B with as much safety as possible, generating as much revenue as possible, carrying as much payload as possible, with as much fuel economy as possible, as less pollution as possible, as much passenger comfort as possible, etc etc.
Of course fighter jets have to be able to climb from point A to point B as fast as possible, but, hey, I don't recall that the A340 is a fighter jet...
Humbly yours,
George
PS: I know it is too much to ask to take aeronautics 101, but, hey, stop asking the very same questions over and over again!
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5977 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4838 posts, 
From Qatar, joined Apr 2001, 284 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1829 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Spain, joined May 2000, 3480 posts, 
From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
