A340-600HGW As Beluga? — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

A340-600HGW As Beluga?

Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6429 times:

With the low backlog of the A340-600 (only 20 airplanes) would Airbus agree to build a Beluga of the 75.3 meter long aircraft if asked?
The An-225 is 84 meters long and can carry 50 tonnes on its back, but I a bigger cargo hold could be possible I guess in the A340-600HGW?

7 replies: All unread, jump to last

A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4656 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6430 times:

Airbus studied this concept for transporting A380 parts, but in the end, it was shelved.

But what about a MegaBeluga BASED on the A380? biggrin

Exceptions confirm the rule.

Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6424 times:

Hardly based on the A340-600HGW since the decision of how the A380 parts transport was decided already before that. A380-800 is shorter than the A340600HGW and the line is busy
something which the A340-600 isn´t with a backlog of 20 aircrafts.

A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4656 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6277 times:

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 2):
Hardly based on the A340-600HGW since the decision of how the A380 parts transport was decided already before that.

Do have have to move into hair-splitting?

Exceptions confirm the rule.

Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2071 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6259 times:

IMO quite easy because all modules for a A346 Beluga exist. The A300 Beluga is built upon the same cross section that the A346 has. Thus you could take a A300 Beluga, apply the A346 wingbox, wings, gear, engines and stretch it as much as desired. The maximum length would be equal to the A346 but maybe the length of the A345 would be enough (and offer more payload).

ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6186 times:

...and carry what with it, a box of envelopes?

The things' payload density profile would be atrocious! As useless as the A345 may be, at least it could do a better job at such a task.

A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4656 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6186 times:

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 4):

The point for another Beluga would be a larger cross section, not additional payload or cargo bay length. IIRC the A346 Beluga would have featured an upper fuselage with a diameter of something like 11m!

Exceptions confirm the rule.

EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 6064 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 5):
The things' payload density profile would be atrocious! As useless as the A345 may be, at least it could do a better job at such a task.

Unfortunately the A340NGs were built to structurally inefficient to be good freighters of any kind. The A346 Beluga would be cool as hell to see though!