Guest

PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 12:41 am

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
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4459
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 12:52 am

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

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

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:00 am

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.
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:13 am

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

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:32 am

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?
 
aak777
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 10:07 pm

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:38 am

are you sure A345/A346 are replacements for the A343
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4459
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:39 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:44 am

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

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:48 am

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
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:44 am

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:54 am

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!
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 2:03 am

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!!!
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Racko

Tue Mar 05, 2002 2:23 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:23 am

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
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 10:46 am

"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
 
Guest

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:23 am

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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:34 am

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
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:28 pm

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
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 9:10 pm

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
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 3:35 am

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 9:19 pm

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
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:25 pm

Sure
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
 
TSV
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 12:13 pm

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Wed Mar 06, 2002 9:27 pm

"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
 
Guest

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Wed Mar 06, 2002 9:50 pm

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
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Thu Mar 07, 2002 5:54 am

"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
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: PW2000 Engines And The A340-300

Thu Mar 07, 2002 5:58 am

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
 
0A340
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Same Posts Over And Over Again By TEDSKI...

Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:12 am

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!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CM767, CX Flyboy, flyingclrs727, hayzel777, JAmie2k9, kimshep, Majestic-12 [Bot], MIflyer12, NeBaNi, psychostang, rslifkin, SyeaphanR, USAirKid, Wraine, zaphod42 and 222 guests