Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340 Nose Down Also Like A330?  
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've always assumed the A340s had the same nose down angle like the A330s but I was skimming some old Flight Intl mags this weekend and somewhere it said a freighter A340 wouldn't be an issue. The A332F needs that weird nose gear blister change and I've seen reports that P2F conversions will need a jack but wouldn't the A340s also need this too? Also the proposed LCF conversion doesn';t mention anything about having to change the height of the nose gear.http://www.lcfconversions.com/a340.html. Thoughts?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5058 times:

The A340-300 and 330-300 have the same nose-down angle on the ground, so the A340 freighter would need a similar system to stay level or close to it.

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4316 times:

Surprisingly the link does not speak of the NLG & its raising mod.
Maybe they did not want to get technical and specific.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineMIAspotter From Spain, joined Nov 2001, 2853 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

An A340 Freighter? now that would be a fun thing to see, trying to get off the ground fully loaded with cargo.

MIAspotter



I think, therefore I don´t fly Ryanair.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17177 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4268 times:

Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 3):
An A340 Freighter? now that would be a fun thing to see, trying to get off the ground fully loaded with cargo.

MIAspotter

As has been repeatedly explained on this board, the Airbus 340 performs just fine and well within safety and regulatory limits.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMIAspotter From Spain, joined Nov 2001, 2853 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4207 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4):
As has been repeatedly explained on this board, the Airbus 340 performs just fine and well within safety and regulatory limits.

Yes I am aware of that thank you very much, but we also agree is not exactly a rocket and carrying PAX fuel and cargo might not be the same as carrying lots of cargo and fuel...

But is it really viable? isn´t it just better to offer just the A330F (both -200 and -300) you know... 2 engines, less fuel, less costs.

My 2 cents

MIAspotter



I think, therefore I don´t fly Ryanair.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17177 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4199 times:

Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 5):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4):
As has been repeatedly explained on this board, the Airbus 340 performs just fine and well within safety and regulatory limits.

Yes I am aware of that thank you very much, but we also agree is not exactly a rocket and carrying PAX fuel and cargo might not be the same as carrying lots of cargo and fuel...

But is it really viable? isn´t it just better to offer just the A330F (both -200 and -300) you know... 2 engines, less fuel, less costs.

It is a fallacy that the 330 is always better than the 340. If that were the case, Airbus wouldn't have kept selling 340s until a few years ago. The 340 does have its place, as evidenced by the many first line carriers still using it. Over long routes and in hot and high environments, the 340 is a great performer economically. Airlines don't care about it being a rocket. They care about return.

You're also assuming that cargo is necessarily denser than pax. That's not necessarily the case.

If you want a definitely better option, that would be a 350F.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4143 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They load underfloor cargo without a "levelling" issue now so why is it an issue when its main deck cargo? Just having heavier loads on the pallets???

With the LCF conversion since the pallets cant be bigger/higher than what goes in the belly maybe thats why they don't worry about the angulation of the planes deck???


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 3):
An A340 Freighter? now that would be a fun thing to see, trying to get off the ground fully loaded with cargo.

DC-8s and 707s operated just fine as freighters for decades (and a few DC-8s still do). In most cases I believe the A340 performs better than a heavily-loaded 707 or DC-8.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31418 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
In most cases I believe the A340 performs better than a heavily-loaded 707 or DC-8.

I don't have 707 numbers, but based on what Airbus have projected for an A340-300P2F, compared to a DC-8-63(C)F or DC-8-73(C)F, the A340 offers about 200 more cubic meters of volume, will lift about 10 tons more payload weight and offer thousands of more kilometers of range. And since they're both using CFM56-based engines, fuel burn is probably not too disparate between them.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2412 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3934 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 7):
They load underfloor cargo without a "levelling" issue now so why is it an issue when its main deck cargo? Just having heavier loads on the pallets???

If nothing else the lower deck is two much shorter segments, each with their own door. You'd at least not have to run a pallet of container nearly as far up (or down) hill.


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
DC-8s and 707s operated just fine as freighters for decades (and a few DC-8s still do). In most cases I believe the A340 performs better than a heavily-loaded 707 or DC-8.

Off the runway, certainly. The early quad-jets were real dogs because of their low bypass engines (think starting your car from a light in 2nd gear). Once at higher altitudes, I bet a 707 could outclimb a 340.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
And since they're both using CFM56-based engines, fuel burn is probably not too disparate between them.

The two engines are substantially different, the CFM56-2 makes 22klb and has a smaller fan and fewer stages than the -5C on the 340. Add to it that the 340s are heavier, and the 340 will burn substantially more. Per unit cargo, though, it will be less.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 7):
They load underfloor cargo without a "levelling" issue now so why is it an issue when its main deck cargo? Just having heavier loads on the pallets???

I think it's a problem because it's awkward to load long things from a truck into a sloped aircraft.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3735 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rwessel (Reply 10):
If nothing else the lower deck is two much shorter segments, each with their own door. You'd at least not have to run a pallet of container nearly as far up (or down) hill.

Interesting point, may also be why the LCF idea does not need to address the slope as with one entry point to each underfloor hold and then up to the main cabin the distance any pallet will travel will be at most under half the cabin length.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3670 times:

Why not consider Main deck Power driven units [PDUs], taking into account the added weight though.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAY-MD11 From Finland, joined Feb 2001, 472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3293 times:

there is the slope in the A300 too and not seem to be a problem. I remember pushing 5000kg pallets to "uphill" in summer +30c with no aircon in the plane..with 3 rampers still hard work. What makes the A330/340 different to have mod in front gear?

User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2749 times:

Quoting AY-MD11 (Reply 14):
What makes the A330/340 different to have mod in front gear?

It's more slant on the 330/340.


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3708 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 5):
Yes I am aware of that thank you very much, but we also agree is not exactly a rocket and carrying PAX fuel and cargo might not be the same as carrying lots of cargo and fuel...

???? - Why would carrying cargo and fuel be different to carrying pax etc? It is just payload.

The advantages of cargo are

1) It doesn't need feeding, watering and storage of the waste products that this produces.

2) It doesn't need to be sold duty free's.

3) You know exactly the weight going on board as against the SLF coming in all shapes & sizes with the variable weight of hand baggage

4) You don't need cabin crew

Cargo seems to have a lot going for it.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A340 Nose Down Also Like A330?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is This What 3 Degrees Nose Up Looks Like posted Mon May 28 2012 10:53:50 by smartt1982
Why The Nose Of A321 Like This? posted Thu Apr 16 2009 19:54:36 by Vietsky
Nose Down Vs Nose Up Approaches posted Thu Jan 18 2007 07:22:19 by Aaden
"Gear Down" On A330/340 posted Sun Jan 14 2007 13:07:18 by Kaitak
A340 (Thumbs Down) posted Fri Nov 5 2004 19:05:16 by Wardialer
Nose Up Vs. Nose Down On Approach posted Sat Jul 24 2004 16:47:26 by Msp12r
757 Nose-Down Landing posted Sun May 16 2004 21:10:18 by Bigphilnyc
A340-600/500 Commonality With A330 posted Fri Sep 21 2001 08:47:44 by Doug_or
DC-8 Nose Down Attitude posted Sat Jun 9 2001 04:47:05 by Mac
X's End E's On A330 And A340. posted Mon Dec 24 2012 09:32:28 by B747forever

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format