Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
PW2000 Engines And The A340-300  
User currently offlineQatar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2854 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.

Any comments would be appreciated

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6347 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

Quatar,
"some operators have complained about the poor performance of the A343."

Can you give some examples of the operators that have complained?


User currently offlineQatar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2756 times:

Many consider the A343 underpowered and some operators have complained about the poor performance of the A343

I have solely based this on comments from the forum. If you make a search on this forum about the A340 performance issues you will get the idea.


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2745 times:

Here in this forum are people who think the A343 is underpowered. That doesn't mean Airlines think that...

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2735 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?

User currently offlineAak777 From Qatar, joined Apr 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2722 times:

are you sure A345/A346 are replacements for the A343

User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6347 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2718 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.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

On this proposed A340-400 they should also consider the slim Rolls Royce RB211 engine from the 757.

User currently offlineQatar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2710 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.



User currently offlineGOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2708 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!
User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2703 times:

TEDSKI, for the last time!!!!!!! Put 4 RB211 on an A340 wing and the wing would snap!!!!!

And Qatar, if you want to do -3500nm flights, Airbus will very happily sell you an A330-200 or -300.

The A340 only begins to make money on 9 hour+ sectors - something that Gulf Air should have realised in the beginning!!!


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2682 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.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2659 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?

User currently offlineKFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2616 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


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2605 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?

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8644 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2601 times:

SIA installed a complicated passenger entertainment system in the 340s which had a mass of 9t


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

hy all that fuss about the A343 beeing underpowered? The B763 cruises even at lower speed than the A343. Yet nobody seems to care.

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2548 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.

User currently offlineRlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1064 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2537 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.



I can drive faster than you
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2520 times:

Sure


dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2484 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.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2474 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.

User currently offlineKFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2442 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.

-Tom


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

I still don't get, why an aircraft should have a take off like a rocket. It's not a hot rod race.

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offline0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2428 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!




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...
AC And The A340 posted Sat Dec 16 2006 04:29:22 by LAXdude1023
Northwest And The A340 posted Sat Sep 9 2006 01:45:38 by Panam64
QR And The A340-600 posted Mon Jan 30 2006 17:11:28 by BHXDTW
Conviasa To Start Flight To MAD On The A340-300 posted Thu Jan 19 2006 03:16:49 by BA747
Pan Am And The A 310-300 posted Sun Dec 4 2005 22:15:34 by USADreamliner
America And The B777-300 posted Wed Oct 26 2005 20:59:19 by JFK998
Etihad And The A340-500? posted Sun May 15 2005 14:46:13 by B742
Continental And The A340 posted Sun May 8 2005 20:15:25 by Gg190
Since When Did The A340-300 Get LCD Displays? posted Tue May 3 2005 00:59:00 by BALandorLivery
Future Of The A340-300 posted Sat Sep 11 2004 23:58:17 by Dutchjet