aerohottie
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:57 am

Is it possible, or practical even to develop a A340-200 with the engine of the A340-500, and even perhaps its wing?
Surely this aircraft would be very capable and could compete directly with the 7E7-900?
What are your thoughts?
What?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:18 pm

It'd be DOA where it stood.

CASM would be even further out of the roof than it is now, range would be pathetic, and the development cost would be absolutely wasted.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:27 pm

.....range would be pathetic,

A 200 with the 500 wing and engines. 500 wing, so plenty of fuel, 200 length fuselage so less weight, I'd say the son of a bitch would fly clean around the globe non-stop.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
airxliban
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:31 pm

that's sort of what the A340-500 is...
PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:31 pm

Could the engines of the -500 be mounted onto the current -200 wing?
What?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:37 pm

A 200 with the 500 wing and engines. 500 wing, so plenty of fuel, 200 length fuselage so less weight, I'd say the son of a bitch would fly clean around the globe non-stop.

Heavy wing
Heavy empennage fortification
Heavy new gear (needed for clearance, and possible structural support)
Heavy new engines, extremely overpowered
etc.

...yeah, will have wonderful range  Yeah sure






Could the engines of the -500 be mounted onto the current -200 wing?

Sure, if you wanted to crack the b!tches, or lose engines on rotation/flare
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
aerohottie
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:44 pm

So ConcordeBoy, how would you improve the capability of the A340-200?
I mean take-off performance, climb-rate etc etc not just range?
I would generally like to know... is the wing the main problem with the A340 or is it the weight of the fuselage?
What?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:49 pm

how would you improve the capability of the A340-200?

By attaching two shuttle boosters and aiming the b!tch square at the sun  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
aerohottie
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:34 pm

hahaha, oh your a classic, I love it.
What?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:36 pm

*takes a bow* Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:37 pm

The wing would have to be strengthened so made a lot heavier. With the current landing gear the weight could only be increased to 287t or so. Using the standard fuel tankage and that Higher MTOW, it would only get a range marginally longer with a 232 or 254 pax load, but most likely shorter if you factor in that the structural strenghthening and engines would add at least 10t, (the weight difference of the engines alone is 9t!), to the OEW along with the higher rate of fuel burn. If you used the -500 wing you can add another 20t for the wings and undercarriage. Without using the -500/600 wing and undercarriage the engines would strike the ground.

You have to remember that the Trent 500 engine is larger in phyisical size than a GE CF6 or a PW4000 used on a 747 or 767. It's also heavier than those engines by .5t per engine. And it would be almost impossible to match the cruise thrust of 4 Trent 500's (10,700lbt each) to the slower cruise speed of the A342 unless you fly it at a lower altitude througout the Mach .82 cruise.

As for competing with the 7E7-9. The 7E7 will have fuel burn rates very near the 767-400 around 4.5t/hr, but an A342 already has a fuel burn of around 6t/h. And this Trent 500 A342 would burn fuel at at least 7t/hr. Remember also that the MTOW for 7E7 will be 227t. The MTOW of the A342 is already 275t and this new wing, new engine A342 would have to have an MTOW of at least 300t to start with and may not make the 7E7-900's range at that weight.

This was a very interesting suggestion, and excercise for me, but Airbus is already pondering a 7E7 competitor, the A350. If it comes to be it will be a twin with increased MTOW over the A332 with larger engines of close to Trent 900/1000 size and thrust. But without a new wing an A350 would be slower, Mach .82 vs .85, (if it used the same fuel it have a 300nm shorter range), and without the advanced composite construction it would be much heavier than the 7E7 is going to be. We'll have to wait and see what Airbus does about the 7E7 threat. So far there are not really any specifics that have been made public.

-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:45 pm

but Airbus is already pondering a 7E7 competitor, the A350

Which more and more seems to be evolving into a 772ER competitor and A340classic replacement
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
aerohottie
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:58 pm

Is the A350 going to be the same length as the A330-200 and A340-200 or between the A310 and A300. Kind of a side question... why is the A310/A300 fuselage so much lighter??? (I know its shorter, but this does not account for the total weight gain of the A330/340 fuselage).
What?
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:58 pm

Which more and more seems to be evolving into a 772ER competitor and A340classic replacement

Probably so, because there is almost no way a developent of the A332/A333 airframe could be as light and as speedy as the "clean sheet of paper" 7E7.

-widebodyphotog




If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:02 pm

Is the A350 going to be the same length as the A330-200 and A340-200 or between the A310 and A300. Kind of a side question... why is the A310/A300 fuselage so much lighter??? (I know its shorter, but this does not account for the total weight gain of the A330/340 fuselage).

The wing's the thing. A342 wing and undercarriage is much heavier and larger than the A300's.

-widebodyphotg
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:06 pm

A342 wing and undercarriage is much heavier and larger than the A300's.

...and still not exactly ideal, as it's "compromised" to adapt to 2 or 4 engine configurations
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:07 pm

So what would Boeing do to respond to a new entry in the 300 pax plane market?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3156
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:09 pm

Airbus already tried this on the 342. It was the A-340-8000. One off production and I think it's been stored up in Berlin for quite a long while after being sold to a sultan. In any case, it didn't sell well.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:12 pm

The A340-8000 simply had CFM56-5C4s. Nothing fancy.

N
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3156
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:36 pm

Well, you want an extra long ranged A340 based on the -200 fuselage without a heavier wing, that's what you end up with. What possible benefit would hangign 345 engines off of it give besides in climb?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Korg747
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:18 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:12 pm

I think the only thing that would make the A340-200's fuselage useful since it's not the same as the A330-200s is to actually just slam the 7e7's engine on a lighter wing on it....That should make it have at least 7000nm of range.
Please excuse my English!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:03 pm

So what would Boeing do to respond to a new entry in the 300 pax plane market?

Boeing already has a trump-card in place:

The 772ER still currently demands a hefty premium over the A343, and that's one reason why the 772LR remains so [relatively] outrageously priced.

Should Airbus launch the A350 as more of a 772ER competitor than 7E7, and it matches/exceeds the 772ER's capabilities in ways the A343 never could; then Boeing can "simply" drop the price on the 772ER, and sell a de-tanked 772LR specifically as a superMTOW B-market offering.

That would at least give them sales/time to come up with a different strategy.

[Edited 2004-11-06 10:34:40]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:59 pm

This seems like the obvious short term solution, but what about the A model? Does it simply get squeezed out of existance, with perhaps a SQ configuration of the 200ER to take its place?

However, an A350 using new, more efficient engines and with a lighter structure could be a serious competitor for the heavier 777 design. Any possibility of taking the 7E7 fuselage design and stretching it into the 772A/ER markets down the road? A 7E7 fuselage stretched into 300 pax market could be the long term answer to the A350. Moreover, Boeing is eventually going to have to address the market for 300-500 passengers with a true new plane to replace the 747/777, and perhaps the minimum size will have to be higher to allow them to cover the higher end of that range with an optimal aircraft. A stretched 7E7 design would seem to fit the bill for a plane to fill the vacated territory.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:32 pm

hat about the A model? Does it simply get squeezed out of existance

...as if that hasn't already (essentially) happened?





perhaps a SQ configuration of the 200ER to take its place?

huh?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:40 pm

However, an A350 using new, more efficient engines and with a lighter structure could be a serious competitor for the heavier 777 design

There are a few big problems with this. In order for the the A330 cross section to compete with B market 777 it would have to be first stretched to nearly the length of the A340-500 just to get the same passenger capacity. Then, the wing would have to grow from the A330 size to something closer to the area of the B market 777. Then the engine thrust would have to be increased to some level between the Trent 800 and 900 levels, depending on how light they could make the aircraft. The wing in itself would have to be something totally new and massively lighter than the A340-500/600 wing, or even A330 wing for that matter, along with a fuselage composed primarily of composite materials to gain a weight and subsequent fuel efficiency advantage over B market 777 in the way 7E7 has over the current A332 and A342.

The 7E7-9 range is pegged at 8,300nm. This from an aircraft with an MTOW 48t lower than the highest gross weight/longest range A342. The 7E7-9 will also be faster and has more range with a few more pax than A342. Using that as a guide I really don't see how Airbus could make a 300+ pax A350 that is 50t lighter than the B market 777, that is faster, and has longer range using current A330 structures as a basis. It just does not fit the design philosophy of Airbus. They have shown no evidence that they believe in mid/large size, Mach .85+ airliners. An 350 with that level of performance would almost certainly have to be a totally new aircraft from the ground up and carry a development cost many times the $1.2 billion EU subsidy they asked for.

The 7E7 cross section is already larger than the A33x/A34x, 226in vs 222in. That means potentially it has the flexibility to cover all of the capacity ranges that the Airbus aircraft do. Will Boeing do it? Who knows. The 7E7 will go into service 12 or 13 years after the first 777's did and is the next generation of commercial airliners. So it's possible that at some point well down the road it would be worthwhile to develop it as a general 777 replacement.


-widebodyphotog


If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:16 am

"...and still not exactly ideal, as it's "compromised" to adapt to 2 or 4 engine configurations"..... making a unique design which has proven very well(compared to the 777 family)

"The 772ER still currently demands a hefty premium over the A343, and that's one reason why the 772LR remains so [relatively] outrageously priced."........maybe you should check the production costs(at Airbus they are lower) and then we have the price politics



 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:47 am

To get back to the original question an A342 with A345 engines and wing would be like the 747SP. It never sold in high numbers and had a CASM that was horrible due to all the weight of a 742 but only the capacity of a DC 10. It had the range, but was not cost effective. Such a plane as you were proposing would easily do SYD-LHR, but that would probably be the only route to warrant the plane which means you are looking of sales figures less then 20. The 747SP had the benefit of it being the only plane that could do transpacific crossings (with the exception of west coast-Japan) at the time, which made it lucrative. However 10 years later when the 744 came out with the same range, but much greater capacity, the 747SP died and has only been seen marginally since.

An A342 with A345 stuff would not be a good 7E7 competitor because the 7E7 prides itself on increased efficiency. Decreasing the A345 fuselage is going the exact wrong way and increasing efficiency because you have an overly large and heavy wing. The 7E7 isn't advertising range that can connect almost any two points on the planet together (that is the job of its big brother 772LR) but what it should be able to do is to connect cities decently far apart at the same CASM as a 744 or A380 (depending on how good Boeing is in its design). They will be able to open up new long distance routes because it will be cost effective to operate them without the bigger equipment even though bigger plane usually means lower CASM.

I hope I answered your question a bit in a less technical way.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:48 am

The 772ER still currently demands a hefty premium over the A343, and that's one reason why the 772LR remains so [relatively] outrageously priced

I would have to strongly disagree with the notion that BC aircraft are outrageously priced. At those prices BCA is making generous profits. Something else to consider is that residual values for current 777-200ER's remain higher relative to their list prices compared to A343. This means that the 772ER holds it's value over time to a higher degree than A343. The oldest 777-200ER's are approaching 10 years old. So within the next 2-5 years look for Boeing to develop a freighter conversion program for the 772 which will flatten out the decline of 772 used aircraft values. This has been the case for the 744 in practice now that the SF conversion program is going ahead.

Airbus much less likely to develop a freighter conversion for the A340 aircraft, so it's residual values will continue to decline at a faster rate than the 772.

Current list prices of 777 are the balance between demand and supply. If nobody wanted to pay the price, Boeing could not sell any. And if they lowered the price arbitrarily, BCA could not make enough aircraft to meet demand. This goes the same for Airbus.


-widebodyphotg
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
wdleiser
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:32 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:34 am

What about putting the A345's engines on the A330, just 2 of them?
(I know I will get chastized for asking that question but what the hell)

Also, I find it sad that planes these day's don't last as long anymore, look at the DC-10, DC-9, and even the 767. The first 2 have flown for over 25 years at least and the 767 has been flying since the 80's. Now it seems airlines are retiring planes faster than anything else. Even ones they havent own for very long.

 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:57 am

What about putting the A345's engines on the A330, just 2 of them?

What would be the point?

The 330 requires a lot more thrust than the Trent 500 makes.

N
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am

I would have to strongly disagree with the notion that BC aircraft are outrageously priced. At those prices BCA is making generous profits. Something else to consider is that residual values for current 777-200ER's

I agree... hence the emphasized term "relatively"





Now it seems airlines are retiring planes faster than anything else. Even ones they havent own for very long.

A lot of that has more to do with consolidation around more efficient models or models sharing commonality, as well as the elimination/consolidation of aircraft producers.


Keep in mind that three decades ago, during the heyday of the DC9/DC10/etc.... there were many more producers than the current big2/little2, and each had products vying for the same market segments.

Now Lockheed's out, McDD did the nasty with Boeing, and the Russian producers stick close to their home markets. Many of the planes produced by those three during their independence/high-eras have since been replaced by more modern Airbuses/Boeings, and that includes older Airbuses/Boeings as well.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ourboeing
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:12 am

Did you guys check this out:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=580158&WxsIERv=QWlyYnVzIEEzNDAtMzEx&WdsYXMg=QWlyYnVzIEluZHVzdHJpZQ%3D%3D&QtODMg=VG91bG91c2UgLSBCbGFnbmFjIChUTFMgLyBMRkJPKQ%3D%3D&ERDLTkt=RnJhbmNl&ktODMp=TWF5IDE3LCAyMDA0&BP=0&WNEb25u=RnJlbmNoIEZyb2dzIEFpclNsaWRlcw%3D%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=Ri1XV0FJ&MgTUQtODMgKE=VmVyeSBsYXJnZSBUcmVudCA5MDAsIGJhY2sgZnJvbSBoaXMgMXN0IGZsaWdodA%3D%3D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MzczNTE%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwNC0wNS0xOA%3D%3D&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=MDAx&static=yes&size=L

 Smile
 
advancedkid
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 1:27 pm

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:16 am

Yes indeed, it's possibility Airbus leaves it
open for future re-engining of -200 &-300
series 340s and these would be named
-400.
Regards,

Advanced
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A340-200 With -500 Engines

Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:43 am

Yes indeed, it's possibility Airbus leaves it open for future re-engining of -200 &-300 series 340s and these would be named -400.

Uh, not really...

That is a test aircraft modified to test the in-flight characteristics of the Trent 500 and Trent 900 Engine under controlled flight conditions. It is by no means a development aircraft for re-engining the A340. It's a test bed for engines not a feasability study of structural modifications.

A shortened A340-500, which is what a 4 X Trent 500 A340-300 would be, would have such terribly high seat-mile/fuel burn/seat costs that it would be a non-starter for Airbus. The dynamics just are not there to make it a viable proposition at all.
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do