trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 5261 posts, RR: 14 Posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5732 times:
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?
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17365 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4785 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."
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32931 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4589 times:
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.
LH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 1207 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4405 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.
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 5261 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4321 times:
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.
AY-MD11 From Finland, joined Feb 2001, 474 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3879 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?
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3719 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 2877 times:
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