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

A340-500 Vs A340-300

Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:50 pm

In the same kind of spirit as the A340 vs 777 discussions I am very interested to know how the similar Airbus aircraft A340-500 and A340-300 compare with eachother.
I remember reading a while back a very detailed comparison of the A340-600 vs 777-300 non ER which basically concluded that the A340-600 was the better aircraft if you wanted to carry a higher load of cargo over a further distance and/or if your aircraft config was more economy oreintated. With the 773 being a beter aircraft if the routes were shorted and more reliant on premium seating.
Does this also prove to be true with the A343 vs A345?
Without any stats, my initial feeling is that the A345 proves to be more efficient the longer the route, with perhaps the A343 being more suited to routes between 4000 and 5500nm...

I would imagine Zvesda and the like would have a good crasp on the topic.
What?
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:05 pm

Quoting Aerohottie (Thread starter):
A340-600 vs 777-300 non ER which basically concluded that the A340-600 was the better aircraft if you wanted to carry a higher load of cargo over a further distance and/or if your aircraft config was more economy oreintated

Of course, the a346 has a longer range (14,600 km vs 11,000 km) than the 773, so for the longer distances the 773 is not suitable. Also the 773 is lighter than the a346.

Quoting Aerohottie (Thread starter):
Does this also prove to be true with the A343 vs A345?

The a345 is a bit larger than the a345 and has MUCH more range. IIRC the a343 has about 13,000 km range and the a345 18,000 (of course depending on payload). I believe tha a343 can also carry slightly more payload than the a345 (43.5 tons for the a343 and 43.3 for the a345, according to the airbus site). This is because the a345 can carry more fuel, but that does not translate in more cargo on flights where the fuel is not needed, so the a343 is more efficient, because it is about 41 tons lighter than the a345.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
aerohottie
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:10 pm

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
so the a343 is more efficient, because it is about 41 tons lighter than the a345.

So what your saying is that the A343 is more efficient all around exept for routes either beyond the range of the A343, or where it would be payload restricted?
What?
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:15 pm

Edit;

A340-313 range: 13.700 km / 7400 nm
A340-500 range: 16.700 km / 9000 nm

Micke// Big grin
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
ekskycargo370
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:46 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:19 pm

A340-500 bad for cargo,no bulk hold,certain pallet positions have to be crushable cargo,none of these problems with the the A343
 
aerohottie
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:47 pm

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 3):
A340-313 range: 13.700 km / 7400 nm
A340-500 range: 16.700 km / 9000 nm



Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
The a345 is a bit larger than the a345 and has MUCH more range. IIRC the a343 has about 13,000 km range and the a345 18,000 (of course depending on payload). I believe tha a343 can also carry slightly more payload than the a345 (43.5 tons for the a343 and 43.3 for the a345, according to the airbus site). This is because the a345 can carry more fuel, but that does not translate in more cargo on flights where the fuel is not needed, so the a343 is more efficient, because it is about 41 tons lighter than the a345.

Ok so say for example an airline operates 12 routes.... 2 of these routes are 7750NM and 7250NM respectively. Then there are 4 routes between 5500NM and 6000NM, and the remaining 6 routes are all between 4500 and 5250NM... what would be the best break down of the fleet???

Using the previous comments it would be 4 x A345, and 16 x A343 roughly
What?
 
A340313X
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 9:03 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:58 pm

Quoting Aerohottie (Thread starter):

I think your analysis is probably about right. As far as I can see no-one is replacing A340-300s with A340-500s. Where operators have both sets of A340 is where the extra range of the -500 is needed for really sickly long flights. The latest versions (X and E) of the -300 still prove economical with the more powerful CFM engines and hence still get the odd order (Finnair). I think the -300 would be rather stretched when it gets towards its maximum range as it's design is slightly flawed due to the engines, and any savings operators would get from the A340 not being a huge gas guzzler would be negated by the strain put on the engines. The -500 and -300 are both similar sizes, but the -500 is much better equipped for really long stints. If a manufacturer had no other A340s and were only looking for routes about 4000-6000nm I would expect them to order the -300, after all the 313E was only released in 2003 and is still pretty up to date and pretty capable.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:52 am

Quoting A340313X (Reply 6):
I think the -300 would be rather stretched when it gets towards its maximum range as it's design is slightly flawed due to the engines, and any savings operators would get from the A340 not being a huge gas guzzler would be negated by the strain put on the engines.

What sort of cost savings would the A343 have over the A345 in regards to fuel burn?
Is the A343 cheaper to buy and maintain?
At which range would th cost savings on fuel be negated by the increased costs of "strain" put on the engines?
What?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:49 am

As earlier stated, the A345 isn't particularly well-suited for cargo and carries a massive amount of (relative) deadweight, which severely restricts its (again relative) profit-potential on all but the longest flights.

That, and they both pale in comparison to superior twinjet competitors in nearly every application-- hence the comparative sales deficiency.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
karan69
Posts: 2699
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:57 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:52 am

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 7):
s the A343 cheaper to buy and maintain?

The last A343s were purchased by AY and Mauritian who were given very good deals by Airbus, point being that purchase price depends upon the whole package deal.

Maintainance is definitly cheaper for the CFMs compared to the RRs on the 345

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 7):
What sort of cost savings would the A343 have over the A345 in regards to fuel burn?

Considering the 343 is 40 tonnes lighter and the engines are not that powerful compared to the Trents , the fuel burn should be considerably less

Quoting A340313X (Reply 6):
after all the 313E was only released in 2003 and is still pretty up to date and pretty capable.

Apart from engine enhancements what were other improvements made on the 343.???

Karan
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:16 am

The A340-500 is some 40 tonnes heavier than the A340-300, despite only being a couple of metres longer. This is bad for fuel burn, and its up to 20% greater.
 
trex8
Posts: 4605
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting Karan69 (Reply 9):
Apart from engine enhancements what were other improvements made on the 343.???

new cockpit and other systems from the A345/6. AFAIK the engine improvements were more emissions and maintenance tweaks than ones directed for increased fuel efficiency though there may have been marginal gains.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:58 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 10):
The A340-500 is some 40 tonnes heavier than the A340-300, despite only being a couple of metres longer. This is bad for fuel burn, and its up to 20% greater.

The A340-300 is a generally pretty efficient and very versatile aircraft for several different missions. It is relatively speaking, not terribly powerful and has slow climbout at MTOW, esp. in hot and high situations, but I'd bet its lighter weight and more efficient in nearly all missions which don't push the very limits of its range.

I think the small number of A340-500s in existence and the very specialised routes they serve (EWR-SIN, JFK-BKK, LAX-SIN, AUH-SYD) are testament to the fact that A340-500 was an aircraft designed for a very specific mission, which is to say one that is very very long. The true mystery is why Emirates run those A340-500 on fairly short (3,000 some odd nm) missions to Europe, where they can't possibly be that efficient.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
trex8
Posts: 4605
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:11 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 12):
The true mystery is why Emirates run those A340-500 on fairly short (3,000 some odd nm) missions to Europe, where they can't possibly be that efficient.

could it just be they have the right premium cabin for those routes??
 
karan69
Posts: 2699
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:57 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:26 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 12):
The true mystery is why Emirates run those A340-500 on fairly short (3,000 some odd nm) missions to Europe, where they can't possibly be that efficient.

Actually they signed a pretty fat corporate client which sells out the F class on the ZRH flights--it was signed for a period of 36 mths IIRC.

Karan
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:26 am

This is an interesting topic.

My former airline - SWISS - has now got quite a good number of the -300s in service. I think it is one of the most elegant and beautiful airplanes in service today. But that doesn't cut it for the number crunchers who make decisions.

It replaced the MD-11 and was said at the time to be about 5% more efficient. Additionally, there was some training commonality with the rest of their Airbus fleet.

As far as the -500, I think the other comments are spot on. It is a very specialized, niche airplane and Airbus probably never expected it to sell in huge numbers. It loses its appeal on shorter flights and I too am surprised it is used on Emirates routes to Europe. But it is.

But then again, SWISS uses the A340-300 on flights to the Middle east and even the eastern United States (JFK) where it is far below its capabilities.

I can see them with a few A330-300s as well as the -340.

Not an expert here. Just a pilot and an industry observer......
smrtrthnu
 
bjornstrom
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:54 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:30 am

How much more efficient would a 777-200LR be over the A340-500 on the SIN-EWR route?
Eurobonus Gold | BMI Gold | http://my.flightmemory.com/bjornstrom/
 
A340313X
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 9:03 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:01 am

Quoting Karan69 (Reply 9):
Apart from engine enhancements what were other improvements made on the 343.???

The 312 and 313 gained progressively more powerful engines over the original 311. The 313X added higher MTOWs and more range, I'm guessing due to larger fuel tanks. The E then adds cockpit and cabin enhancements to the X frame and maybe slight MTOW differences? The X and the E have the same engines as the original 313 - CFM56-5C4s at 34,000lbs each. There have been imprevements to the 5C4 but I believe these are fuel burn rather than power based.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:08 am

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 15):
As far as the -500, I think the other comments are spot on. It is a very specialized, niche airplane and Airbus probably never expected it to sell in huge numbers.

Yes, almost exactly the same comments as for the 747SP 30 years ago...a specialized aircraft to meet specific long range requirements for a small number of airlines, and only 45 were built. They probably would have sold a few more if later models of the 747-200 hadn't been almost as capable as the SP while carrying many more passengers.
 
trex8
Posts: 4605
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:10 am

last paragraph, 1% better fuel consumption only

http://www.cfm56.com/index.php?level2=blog_viewpost&t=321
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 16):
How much more efficient would a 777-200LR be over the A340-500 on the SIN-EWR route?

I'd say the 777-200LR burns roughly 15% less fuel in total, even on top of the fact that it carries more pasengers and cargo.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:54 am

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 16):
How much more efficient would a 777-200LR be over the A340-500 on the SIN-EWR route?

The twinjet could do the route more quickly, using less fuel, and with more payload (including the possibility of more pax and an F class) for a higher potential profit...

..though not enough of one to convince SQ that a fleet overhaul would be sufficient to overcome the A345s' virtual worthlessness on the 2nd-hand market.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:41 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 21):

..though not enough of one to convince SQ that a fleet overhaul would be sufficient to overcome the A345s' virtual worthlessness on the 2nd-hand market.

Whatever. I don't see Air Canada's 345s headed for Victorville. While they might not be made in mass quantities, you'll not see them disappear from the skies for a long time. There's certainly more A345s than 772LRs in the skies, if I'm not mistaken. In fact, I think Air Canada is the first to drop the A345 for the 772LR, but frankly, Air Canada is scrambling to pinch every penny it can because its so cash strapped, and that's because it has become a really sub-par national airline from what it used to be. It simply doesn't offer a product like Etihad, Emirates, and Singapore.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 15):
It replaced the MD-11 and was said at the time to be about 5% more efficient. Additionally, there was some training commonality with the rest of their Airbus fleet.



Quoting EI321 (Reply 20):
I'd say the 777-200LR burns roughly 15% less fuel in total, even on top of the fact that it carries more pasengers and cargo.

If the fuel burn was really 15% less, then no one should be flying them if companies like Swiss are willing to drop the MD-11 for the A340-300 for a 5% efficiency improvement. Heck, Singapore uses the A340-500 from SIN to Jakarta, explain that one. Wasn't Kingfisher interested in the A340-500 for some very long hauls from Bangalore to the US?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4895
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:08 pm

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 22):
Singapore uses the A340-500 from SIN to Jakarta, explain that one.

Used between the LAX and EWR trips and also for Crew to keep their hours up.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:43 pm

Good morning,

if I recall correctly, Airbus had planned to equip the first generation A340 series with highly efficient IAE engines. IAE stopped the development relatively late during the development. Airbus, hence, was forced to look for a replacement and the cfm56s turned out to be the best choice available, though not as powerful as the original IAEs had been designed. This is the reason why the thrust to weight ratio of the A340s is not specifically large, though still larger than that of the 747s.

In the past, a number of highly successful aircrafts have been re-engined, e.g. DC8-60s and DC8-70s who received cfm56-2s, some 707s, which did so, one demo 707 which received a set of JT8Ds, 727-100s being Tay-ed a.s.o.

I've got two questions:

a)
The thrust range of P&Ws geared PW8000s would make theses engines suitable for the A340s. Would a re-engining be technically and economically be feasible?

b)
I found an article published April 17th, 2006, posted by Robert Luedeman, attorney at law on http://cornponepapers.blogspot.com/2...-life-and-untimely-demise-of.html, which I'd like to quote:

"
The Short Life and Untimely Demise of the PW8000

When I started in the Garrett engine shop back around 1980, Garrett was coming to the end of a long hard development slog, getting the gearbox right on the TFE731 turbofan. There had been numerous failures, service bulletins and planetary reworks, and every engine in the field had gone through the rework program. As I recall I was given a special tool for removing a large anti rattle washer on the sun gear, which was one of the last big service bulletins. The whole mess cost Garrett a lot of money, downtime, and ill will.

All of which made it more interesting when Avco Lycoming tried more or less the same thing on the ALF502-which also had significant teething problems and nearly sunk the Canadair Challenger program. The ALF502 was supposed to be a quick and dirty spinoff of the T53 military turboshaft engine-but it took a lot of engineering to make it serviceable.

The handwriting was and is on the wall-gear reduction fan drives in turbine aircraft engines are damned difficult to bring off. They're expensive, quirky, and beset with problems not easily fixed, and the development dollars mount rapidly.

So when I heard that Pratt & Whitney was working on geared fans, my ears perked up and I wondered whether the boffins at East Hartford were smarter than everyone else or just didn't bother reading the newspapers.

The PW8000 was supposed to be a geared fan section on a PW6000 power core, and the article in the SAE journal archives is most interesting. The engine was scheduled for certification two years on, which would have put the release date about 2001. There is also a very nice article in Flug Review which described the history and construction of the PW8000.

But the PW8000 never went anywhere despite ten years of research and $350 million in development money.

The latest iteration of the geared fan concept from Pratt is their GTF Demonstration program which they are currently working on at this writing. It is a PW6000 core with a revised planetary gearbox that is alleged to save weight and be more efficient than the stillborn PW8000. Time will tell whether the market will reward P&W's devotion to the geared turbofan concept, or whether it is a technological blind alley for them.

The news about planetary reduction gearboxes in aircraft engines is not new. The old man once told me about looking for photographs of busted planets that he could use in a report after yet another reduction gear failure at Wright Aeronautical in the 1940s. He said they had a broken gearset for any occasion. I am sure that any of the engineers and technicians at Garrett that sweated bullets making the TFE731 a going proposition could have told the folks in East Hartford as much.

"


What about this PW8000? Is it going to be a success or something for the archives?

Best wishes,

Ferroviarius
 
A340313X
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 9:03 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:41 pm

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 24):
if I recall correctly, Airbus had planned to equip the first generation A340 series with highly efficient IAE engines. IAE stopped the development relatively late during the development. Airbus, hence, was forced to look for a replacement and the cfm56s turned out to be the best choice available, though not as powerful as the original IAEs had been designed. This is the reason why the thrust to weight ratio of the A340s is not specifically large, though still larger than that of the 747s.

The engine in question was the IAE superfan. As for 747s I don't know of a single model of 747 that has a worst thrust:weight ratio than an A340-300. The -500/600s do, but not the -300s.

For example, the least powerful 747-200 has 0.252 lbs of thrust per lb of weight at MTOW. The most powerful and latest A340-300, the 313E has only 0.224lbs of thrust per lb of weight at MTOW. The A340-300 as an aircraft model has the lowest thrust:weight ratio of any commercial jet airliner.

The most powerful A340-300 in terms of thrust:weight ratio is the original 313 with 0.237lbs of thrust per lb of weight at MTOW. This is still significantly below even the slowest 747 of any kind.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13831
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:04 pm

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 2):
So what your saying is that the A343 is more efficient all around exept for routes either beyond the range of the A343, or where it would be payload restricted?

Yes. The A345 gets its extra range by its ability to carry more fuel, and more effective engines. The ability to carry more fuel means the plane needs stronger landing gear and a stronger fuselage which means it weighs more. When you don't need the extra fuel, you are still carrying around the extra weight, so it is not efficient for the shorter routes.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 8):
As earlier stated, the A345 isn't particularly well-suited for cargo and carries a massive amount of (relative) deadweight, which severely restricts its (again relative) profit-potential on all but the longest flights.

 checkmark 

The dead weight is the heavier landing gear and fuselage needed to carry the extra fuel.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:56 pm

Good afternoon,

Quoting A340313X (Reply 25):
The engine in question was the IAE superfan. As for 747s I don't know of a single model of 747 that has a worst thrust:weight ratio than an A340-300. The -500/600s do, but not the -300s.

For example, the least powerful 747-200 has 0.252 lbs of thrust per lb of weight at MTOW. The most powerful and latest A340-300, the 313E has only 0.224lbs of thrust per lb of weight at MTOW. The A340-300 as an aircraft model has the lowest thrust:weight ratio of any commercial jet airliner.

The most powerful A340-300 in terms of thrust:weight ratio is the original 313 with 0.237lbs of thrust per lb of weight at MTOW. This is still significantly below even the slowest 747 of any kind.

Yes, A340313X, this is right. However, this refers to the thrust at speed 0. At speeds within a certain range, the thrust ratios change. Thus, in spite of the fact that the 747s have a higher thrust to weight ratio at speed 0 than the 340s (talking about cfm56 powered models now), the 340s still have a better climb performance up to approx. 10000ft. I could find the exact numbers when looking for a long time, but instead allow myself to quote Zeke from Hong Kong from an earlier thread "Why Small Engines On A340-200/300?":

"
...
The 340 uses less runway than a 777, 747, or 764ER at MTOW.

A 744 with -80C2B engines will have a climb gradient of 5.8% to 10,000 ft, whilst a A343 with CFM56-5C2 engine has a gradient of 6.6% to 10,000ft, new engines are better still.

At altitude is where the 340 climb performance drops off, as it has less excess thrust , the A343 with CFM56-5C2 (TOW 257t) will take 27 minutes and 149 nm to FL320 whilst the 744 will take 21 minutes and 130 nm, the 744 would still give you 900 fpm at 290, whilst the 330 only 500 fpm.

Over about 4000 nm trip a 744 will burn 79t, and the 340 51t, per seat the 340 burns less fuel than the 744.
...
"

Best wishes,

Ferroviarius
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: A340-500 Vs A340-300

Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:55 pm

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 27):
However, this refers to the thrust at speed 0. At speeds within a certain range, the thrust ratios change. Thus, in spite of the fact that the 747s have a higher thrust to weight ratio at speed 0 than the 340s (talking about cfm56 powered models now), the 340s still have a better climb performance up to approx. 10000ft. I could find the exact numbers when looking for a long time, but instead allow myself to quote Zeke from Hong Kong from an earlier thread "Why Small Engines On A340-200/300?":

I believe that the lower climb rate for the 747 above 10000ft has more to do with the wing design, and that is has a higher wing loading than the A340.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 321neo, 817Dreamliiner, Baidu [Spider], deltacto, GianiDC, OA940, overcast, SCQ83, VirginFlyer, woodcutting, XaviClot, zknzf and 185 guests