na
Topic Author
Posts: 9161
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:37 pm

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...heme-seeks-launch-customer-370156/

With later-built A340s probably facing a shortened life as passenger planes the A340-300 would make a nice and affordable freighter, especially with this idea of loading it through the lower freight doors and elevators, avoiding cutting in an expensive large door in the upper deck. I´ve always thought why a A340F didnt come up earlier as it makes a more capable plane as the A330. I think a few dozen could be converted, making nice-price MD-11F replacements for smaller operators with limited funds.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:53 pm

It's an interesting idea, but not sure how practical it will be limited to belly hold dimensioned pallets and ULDs.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:00 pm

Another article on this potential program.

[Edited 2012-03-30 10:47:44]
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4595
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:02 pm

I'm trying really hard to think of a carrier who would use this. The system of smaller ULDs lends itself to integrator service, but the big integrators aren't buying.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11831
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:11 pm

How are freighter lease rates doing right now? (Any link is appreciated.) IMHO, there is a short window for this conversion. Once 787s and A350s delieries ramp up, I see used 763ER, A333 (iniital build), and 772 values dropping enough to close off interst in A340 based freighters.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 3):
I'm trying really hard to think of a carrier who would use this. The system of smaller ULDs lends itself to integrator service, but the big integrators aren't buying.

Who is buying? FedEx will replace the DC-10s and later the MD-11s, but who would buy A340 freighters? It would be a tough resale and thus tough financing.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
SASMD82
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:44 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:11 pm

As an Airbus fan: why replacing old MD-11s/DC-10s/A300s/A310s with old A340s?

I doubt that this will be as successful as - for instance - the convertion of the MD-11 pax into freighters.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:00 pm

I personally think this wouldn't work for FX. I do see them retiring the DC10's & MD-11's but not with old 340's. This might with work smaller carriers who need the need the lift now and can disregard the age of the frame. That and people who people who still believe in "4 engines 4 the long haul"   

As far as the freight elevators go, what success have they had in the past. Im sure they'll be using motorized rollers as well.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3153
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:00 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):

How are freighter lease rates doing right now? (Any link is appreciated.) IMHO, there is a short window for this conversion. Once 787s and A350s delieries ramp up, I see used 763ER, A333 (iniital build), and 772 values dropping enough to close off interst in A340 based freighters.

Freighters are in a bit of a turnover mode right now.

747 classics are pretty much being retired rapidly (-100s and -300s are pretty much gone, and the -200s have been declining with Kalitta and Evergreen as primary users- and airframes don't tend to find a new life after they're done with them. There are quite a few -400s for conversion, however there are a lot of operators (ANA, ANZ, JAL, Lufthansa, Air France) that are sending their retired airframes direct to the scrappers.

A300s:Freight carriers are retiring a lot of early models this year (A300B4s), with them being replaced by -600 conversions

A310s: Fedex is parking their older models and many in passenger use will not be candidates for conversion

I actually think that the 787 and A350 delays will excaberate the issue, with good 767s and A330s getting several more years of heavy use, along with thousands of additional hours and cycles piled on them. It'll cause a crunch on the low end of the market and may make a freighter with a low payload like this (only 60t?) attractive if at a good pricce. After all it's basically half a 747/777f.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Flaps
Posts: 1176
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:45 pm

While I see some merit in the use of the A340 as a freighter, I wouldn't have any interest in this option., Smaller containers mean more handling moves, longer turnaround times and more labor. It also limits the ability to carry large high yield items. By restricting the aircraft to cargo that fits through the lower door you are limiting the aircraft's capacity in an even more restrictive manner than strengthening the floors and adding the large door. You are reducing it's revenue capacity by a greater degree than a conventional conversion. I have a lot of experience with the ABX/Airborne system of small containers through the passenger door. While the lower deck containers of the A340 have more capacity than Airborne's "laundry bins" they are even harder to load and unload due to their low height.
 
behramjee
Posts: 4337
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:53 pm

Few interesting observations I have from this article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...heme-seeks-launch-customer-370156/

A343 can be bought for $15M only? If so that is really cheap!!!

A343F can only carry approx 60-65 tons of cargo? If that is the case, it will not do well as I think it needs to be able to carry 80-82 tons at least. The flying range of 9260KM is good though realistically speaking it will be able to 8000KM max!
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3702
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:02 pm

It's an interesting concept. The main appeal of that design is the cost.
No major structural changes apart from the lifts, rollers and removal of unnecessary systems...
I doubt they'll even remove that many systems since they mention that a conversion back to passenger would still be possible.
Add to that bargain priced airframes...

Certification will be a walk in the park.

I'm still curious to know who would be interested in a freighter with the payload size limitation. They do mention that they wouldn't need interest from the legacy freight carriers to make it work. The inital design and certification cost is so low that they would need few conversions to break even.

If it keeps A340s in the air, bring it on!

I wonder how much sense it would make on an A340-500...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:27 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
How are freighter lease rates doing right now?

For January 2012, monthly dry lease rate averages for the major types are:

A300F4s: $80-115,000
A3006Fs: $170-470,000
A313Fs: $95-145,000
A332Fs: $775-900,000

744F: $370-925,000
748F: $1,700,000-1,900,000
763F: $285-460,000
777F: $900-$1,550,000

DC1030F: $50-90,000
MD11F: $210-410,000

Quoting behramjee (Reply 9):
A343F can only carry approx 60-65 tons of cargo?


Airbus Freighter Conversion Vice-President of Marketing and Sales Michael Fuers gave a projected payload of 70t for an A340-300P2F back in 2007. Bedek Aviation did not give a figure for their proposed A340-300P2F conversion they were working on around the same time.

[Edited 2012-03-30 13:29:40]
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:46 pm

I am inclined to be skeptical; I think that the inconvenience of loading through the lower deck will far outweigh the money saved by not installing a large door on the main deck. And there probably are not enough A340's available for conversion to justify the cost of developing an upper deck cargo door. While the low acquisition cost is attractive, once converted it has to compete, and I think it will be at a substantial disadvantage.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
vaus77w
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:05 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:21 pm

Could we see LH Cargo interested in this as a alternative to the 777F (not that it's as efficient or capable but the low cost and vast experience of maintaining this model are advantages)?
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:55 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):

That is what I'm thinking as well. Trying to get around the conversion of a main loading door really defeats the purpose of a freighter. The more time its on the ground it cost the carrier $$. Simple as that. Aside you have the labor and also the fuel expense. Are there a freighter twin engine that compares spec wise to this proposed A340 freighter specs??

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 13):
http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...-11f-fleet-predicts-no-growth-2012

"Lufthansa Cargo (LHC) is considering replacing its fleet of 18 BoeingMD-11Fs and will decide by 2014 which aircraft to go with, LHC chairman and CEO Karl-Ulrich Garnadt told ATW in Seoul, South Korea.

“We know we have to order more [Boeing] 777Fs and there is no other option,” Garnadt said. LHC finalized an order for five 777 freighters valued at $1.35 billion last spring"

Im guessing this might help.
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:01 am

This conversion would limit it's cargo interchangeability only with other freighters as belly cargo as it would leave a large void on the main deck.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:02 am

There's really no such thing as an old A340. And they are very fuel efficient frames.

They're wholesale fleeting with 757s that are much older.

NS
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:30 am

Quoting na (Thread starter):
I´ve always thought why a A340F didnt come up earlier as it makes a more capable plane as the A330. I think a few dozen could be converted, making nice-price MD-11F replacements for smaller operators with limited funds.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
Once 787s and A350s delieries ramp up, I see used 763ER, A333 (iniital build), and 772 values dropping enough to close off interst in A340 based freighters.
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 6):
As far as the freight elevators go, what success have they had in the past. Im sure they'll be using motorized rollers as well.

I just don't see the A-340LCF as a practical or desirable freighter. Those two elevators are going to add weight, lots of it, which reduces payload. It would be far cheaper in design and install a side cargo door, they could use the designed door of the A-330F. A cargo door would also weigh a lot less than two elevators designed to lift heavy pallets. The elevator floors and rails would have to be strong enough to support cargo loads during 'high' G (typically 1.5 to 2 Gs).

The payload will be in the 60 ton area because of the elevator modifications. So, what yopu end up with is a 4 engined new build B-767-300ERF, which carries 59 tons at transcontenential range. That is all before you get to the fact the A-340F would be a gas guzzeler. The freight companies cannot make money with a gas hog, and takes almost twice as long to load/unload, compared to other new build freighters of converted freighters.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:36 am

The A340 is not an obvious candidate for Freighter conversion.

A good freighter has a high landing weight, a high zero fuel weight, and a modest range. Cargo companies do their best to avoid spending fuel on transporting fuel. They rather take a fuel stop en route. Unlike passengers, cargo never complains about fuel stops.

The A340 was designed to be the opposite - a long range passenger plane with modest payload capability.

With 30% less payload capability than an MD-11F I think it is a non-starter.

The range would be roughly double compared to MD-11F with full payload. But what does that matter when the MD-11F hauls so much more cargo the same distance with one fuel stop?

But if they should ever be taken up by a cargo company, then why not send them to Dresden and have them properly configured with a cargo door as they do with old A300 and A310? The fuselage structure is the same - only somewhat longer - so little R&D would be involved.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
bohica
Posts: 2304
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:59 am

I can just see one of those elevators going inop and causing some of the upper deck cargo to be stranded on the plane. Talk about a nightmare.
 
tsnamm
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:28 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:28 am

How much cheaper would the installation of these internal "elevators" be than a proper main deck door modification? There would have to be an opening as large as a PMC pallet cut in the main deck floor in order to accommodate the "elevator". Besides, you waste all the space of the main deck by limiting the height of the pallets to the 64 in lower deck height.....I can't see this being of any use to anyone...any of the integrators use 10ft structural units on the main deck currently (AMA etc.), which would be too big for this type of conversion, and any heavy lift cargo operators would want to build pallets to 120 inches, or need to utilize a 20 ft pallet for oversize freight, let alone the height...I don't know who exactly this type of conversion even if its cheaper; is supposed to appeal to. It would be limited in application, and use an aircraft type (the A340) that would be better served with a proper full freighter conversion to maximize its potential, and minimize its shortcomings, as compared to other types its competing with on the freighter conversion market...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:01 am

I believe the cost savings come more from not needing to reinforce the main deck since it appears floor loadings for pallets and ULDs would be the same as for belly cargo.

I can see why they started with the 777, since I've seen claims that the main deck needs to be replaced due to the CFRP floor beams not being load-rated to take "heavy" cargo (the 777F uses Al floor beams) and that conversion cost runs in the scores of millions.
 
airliner777
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 6:38 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:27 am

Quoting behramjee (Reply 9):

Few interesting observations I have from this article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...heme-seeks-launch-customer-370156/

A343 can be bought for $15M only? If so that is really cheap!!!

A343F can only carry approx 60-65 tons of cargo? If that is the case, it will not do well as I think it needs to be able to carry 80-82 tons at least. The flying range of 9260KM is good though realistically speaking it will be able to 8000KM max!

What is the Tampa Cargo tail doing at that Flightglobal website picture? Maybe the "launch customer" they are looking for?

Fly safe!
Airliner777
 
liftsifter
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:25 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:35 am

I see RJ as a perfect candidate. Their A310 freighters are aging and their 787s are coming in 2014, that leaves the A342's. They look like perfect candidates.

I think this is really geared towards those using A300/310 freighters.
A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B736 B737 B738 B744 B763 B77L B77E B77W B788 E190
 
aeroflop
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:12 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:20 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Those two elevators are going to add weight, lots of it

Yeah those a340s really don't need anymore weight. Seeing them take off is really an intense experience. I recall somebody joking that the a340 only takes off because of the natural curvatures of the earth.  
 
Thunderball
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:16 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:53 am

We had a presentation on this concept late last year; don't write it off Guys. It's not for everyone, but it may have real merit. And no, the lifts don't add a lot of weight - quite the opposite. The weight put back into the airframe in this conversion is significantly less than a conventional P2F, so the payload is higher than a P2F conversion would be - between 65 and 70 tonnes.

The A340-300s that are available are not old airframes - as someone said in this thread, there is no such thing as an old A340, (think about those B767-200 they're putting through P2F.....). And the A340-300 as a type is neither particularly heavy nor is it that fuel inefficient. Yes, it's heavier and less fuel efficient than an A330-300, but the massive price differential means it offers huge bang-per-buck when modded with a low cost freighter conversion. Another post said that it's almost the same as a B767-300F - not so, no way. The A340 conversion will carry 10 tonnes more than the B763F, and crucially it wll carry it as far as a lot of people want to go. The B763F will run out of breath at about 3,250 nm - ask a certain well-know integrator how adequate that is for Europe-US into the prevailing winds....
 
dennys
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 11:19 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:33 pm

Quoting na (Thread starter):

Many thanks na from Germany , not to mension that the original A340 programm included in A340F , so why not ? Instead of scrapping them .
Good news !
Cheers
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:06 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
I believe the cost savings come more from not needing to reinforce the main deck since it appears floor loadings for pallets and ULDs would be the same as for belly cargo

It may not be quite the savings in conversion costs you think it would be, Stitch. Several of the floor beams (longitutenial and lateral) will need to be cut and some type of end caps installed to make the holes for the elevators. Then the elevators themselves will need new and stronger floor beams under the platform just to be able to lift and support the weight of the cargo pallets and ULDs.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):Those two elevators are going to add weight, lots of it
Yeah those a340s really don't need anymore weight.

Correct.
 
Thunderball
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:16 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:25 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Then the elevators themselves will need new and stronger floor beams under the platform just to be able to lift and support the weight of the cargo pallets and ULDs.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 24):Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):Those two elevators are going to add weight, lots of it
Yeah those a340s really don't need anymore weight.
Correct.

INCORRECT. See my post. The designers are emphatic that the elevators do not add significant incremental weight. They were questioned for an hour on this. The answers were credible.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:41 pm

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 24):
Yeah those a340s really don't need anymore weight.

hm, we are talking here A340-300 series - weight was never exactly their problem.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 24):
I recall somebody joking that the a340 only takes off because of the natural curvatures of the earth.

Really - no that is funny. Never heard that one before...
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:51 pm

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 24):
I recall somebody joking that the a340 only takes off because of the natural curvatures of the earth.



That was a Lufthansa's captain about the performance of the early A342s.

The technical reason behind the joke is:
DLH could have climbed out faster, but they used flex thrust to set no more than necessary for a safe TO. This allowed engines to run cooler and to last longer.


And now a little Swiss joke:
Swissair 340 climbing out of Zurich.

ATC: "Swissair 123, can you confirm you're an A340?"

A340: "affirm Zurich, we are a 340"

ATC: "well, could you start the 2 other engines please?"
 
trent1000
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:55 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:09 pm

About the A340:

Quoting na (Thread starter):
it makes a more capable plane as the A330.


Do you mean that the A340 is as capable as an A330 or that the A340 is a more capable plane than an A330?
If it's the latter, on what basis do you say that? Cargo weight, range or other factors?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19766
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:19 pm

Quoting na (Thread starter):
MD-11F replacements

NOOOOOoooooooooooooo!!!  

Signed,

-Aviation enthusiasts all over the place  
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12394
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:39 pm

The reality is that DC-8's are pretty much ended their freighter life. There are still some locations where a 747 is too much and a 2-engined too short in over water range. 777's and some other 2-engined aircraft may end up continuing as pax aircraft for the foreseeable future, especially with the delays of the B 787 and A 350. Many of the eligible A340's may not have the cycles or hours to put them into D checks or retirement for cost-benefit reasons yet. Probably the 340's as F's would work best for freight divisions of major airliners or freight airliners with Airbus a/c's already in their fleets so easier for flight crew transfers, mx, etc.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3153
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:02 pm

In that case, maybe someone would be able to take MSN 003, which never made it to Iran. Only 60,000 hours. Could get 10 years of service with the time left on the airframe.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:56 pm

Very few air freight pallets weigh much more than 600 lbs now days, as they tend to carry high value, non dense electronic type products.
I just shipped several thousand camera SD cards valued at US$40,000 worth of product for about $$1900.00 in air freight fees, a distance of just under 20,000 kms. They made about 3 stops along the way, including a change of aircraft. The total weight of the merchandise which took 2 pallets physically, was under 240kgs.

Why not use a small wheeled portable lift, located on the main deck, to double stack pallets on the main deck, at least down the middle, and thereby use up that main deck head room? why limit yourself to the height of the belly p box?
I-Pads, IPhones, tablets, game consoles, GPS devices, are all examples of relatively high dimension, high value, low weight merchandise that travels by air.

As an aside, we used to ship CD's and DVD's, bulk, by air, years ago. A pallet of 30,000 discs worth just over $3,000 weighs almost 600kgs. It used to cost the equivalent of about US$0.04 (4 cents) per disc to ship them by air. Now, with fuel prices where they are, the unit air freight is as much as the value of the product, US0.12 (12 cents) for the freight on a single disc, which only has a manufacturing cost of US0.10 (10 cents). . Needless to say this type of low value, relatively heavy, product now travels by ocean, taking 3 or so weeks to arrive, or clients can get them made locally, with faster delivery times, in North America for US$0.20/ea, (20 cents), and still come out ahead, rather than air freighting them from Asia.
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:15 pm

The A340 gives a unique quality as passenger aircraft - it has the lowest noise level of all aircraft. Therefore I see a continued demand until they run out of cycles.

If of course LH was allowed to fly A343F out of FRA at night because you do not hear them, things would look very different.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4792
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:27 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 36):
The A340 gives a unique quality as passenger aircraft - it has the lowest noise level of all aircraft. Therefore I see a continued demand until they run out of cycles.

Most passengers don't know or care that the A340 is quieter than the competition, it is not a driving force for A340 purchases or why airlines would keep them in service.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 36):
If of course LH was allowed to fly A343F out of FRA at night because you do not hear them, things would look very different.

Is the A340 actually any quieter from the outside compared to 777? I was under the impression that they have similar exterior noise levels, and both are probably louder than a A380/787 and presumably the A350...
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:30 pm

While I think this is an interesting out of the box concept, I'm having trouble finding an application in terms of manufactured goods. These could work in a feeder system say bringing South American flowers and produce to a central airport and the containers then are distributed to local markets as belly cargo. the same would work in the Middle East/ African support of Europe... but when the Northern hemispheres are in production, there isn't much traffic going south.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:07 pm

Quoting Thunderball (Reply 28):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):Then the elevators themselves will need new and stronger floor beams under the platform just to be able to lift and support the weight of the cargo pallets and ULDs.

Quoting aeroflop (Reply 24):Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):Those two elevators are going to add weight, lots of it
Yeah those a340s really don't need anymore weight.
Correct.
INCORRECT. See my post. The designers are emphatic that the elevators do not add significant incremental weight. They were questioned for an hour on this. The answers were credible.

Do you mean this post with no link to what the engineers actually said?

Quoting Thunderball (Reply 25):
We had a presentation on this concept late last year; don't write it off Guys. It's not for everyone, but it may have real merit. And no, the lifts don't add a lot of weight - quite the opposite. The weight put back into the airframe in this conversion is significantly less than a conventional P2F, so the payload is higher than a P2F conversion would be - between 65 and 70 tonnes.
Quoting Thunderball (Reply 25):
The A340-300s that are available are not old airframes - as someone said in this thread, there is no such thing as an old A340, (think about those B767-200 they're putting through P2F.....). And the A340-300 as a type is neither particularly heavy nor is it that fuel inefficient.

Yeap it is so fuel efficent it is breaking all the sales records.....OH WAIT....

As for the elevators not adding lots of weight, show me. The elevators will require not only the lift platform and lifting system (cables, etc.) but vertical guide rails, safety locks and safety systems, controls on both the upper and lower cargo decks (that lock out the opposite set to prevent two people from operating the elevator at the same time), and a system to assure a worker/loader does not get trapped under the elevator platform. I haven't even looked at the modifications needed to the hydraulic and electrical systems, or the impact, if any the elevator placements would have on the FBW system and redundent systems.

Quoting Thunderball (Reply 25):
Another post said that it's almost the same as a B767-300F - not so, no way. The A340 conversion will carry 10 tonnes more than the B763F, and crucially it wll carry it as far as a lot of people want to go.

The new build B-767-300ERF carries up to 59 tons (53.7 tonnes), or about 118,000 lbs out to 3250 nm. You claim the A-340LCF can carry at least 65 tonnes, or about 143,000 lbs, on four 32,000 lb thrust engines. It simply cannot carry that much weight. The A-340F sister aircraft, the new build A-330F carries a cargo load up to 65 tonnes, or about 143,000 lbs, out to about 4000 nm on two 74,000 lb thrust engines. So you are saying an A-340P2F conversion will carry as much cargo weight as an A-330F purpose built freighter? Converted P2Fs typically carry 70% to 80% of the cargo weight of their purpose built freighters sisters. This means your A-340F will only be able to carry about 52 tonnes at an 80% load of the A-330F, or about 45.5 tonnes at 70% of the A-330F load.

So, I stand by my statement the B-767F and A-340F will carry about the same weight loads, with the B-767F being able to carry taller cargo, if needed. The B-767F will burn at least 35%-40% less fuel than the A-340F will.

The only advantage I can see the A-340F having over other freighters is the very low purchace and conversion costs. An A-340 bought for about $15M USD and converted to the LCF configueration for another $7M USD, or so is a bargan conpared to any other WB new build or converted freighter. But even at that price, the ROI will be a long time coming (if ever) due to the additional labor costs for loading/unloading, maintenance on two additional engines, and a much higher fuel costs.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5218
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:11 pm

Might as well try this tack iso the A340.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-767-2c-as-civil-freighter-370214/

Quote:
"The US Air Force's KC-46 programme manager says that Boeing could market a freighter derivative of the tanker's 767-2C airframe to civil operators.

'That potentially is an airplane that Boeing could with--minor modifications--market as a 767 freighter,' says Major General Peter Bogdan. 'We've already seen some of that, as you may recall, about a month-and-a-half ago, FedEx made an order for 767 freighters.'

[.....]

80% of the KC-46 is derived from civil hardware that is common to Boeing commercial aircraft.

The 767-2C-on which the KC-46 is based--will have a fully-stressed cargo floor, a cargo door, and the entire aircraft has a 'beefed-up structure,' Bogdan says."


[Edited 2012-03-31 11:55:00]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:31 pm

A civillian freighter version of the 767-2C would appeal to the USAF by reducing risk. It would also appeal to Boeing by reducing costs (the additional civilian sales would help amortize the costs).

I don't have hard numbers, but back-of-the-envelope projections show a 767-2C would offer more volume and payload lift than the A310-200F | A310-300F, though I'm not sure about range. Of course, a 767-2C would not be able to take LD3s in the lower deck like the A310F and I expect main deck pallet dimensions would be a bit more generous on the A310 than the 767.

Still, for FX, a 767-2C would probably fit the bill as an A310F replacement and would complement their 767-300F fleet.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18991
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:37 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 36):
The A340 gives a unique quality as passenger aircraft - it has the lowest noise level of all aircraft.

Isn't the A380 at least as quiet, if not quieter?
 
dennys
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 11:19 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:46 pm

Quoting francoflier (Reply 10):

It's an interesting concept.

If it keeps A340s in the air, bring it on!

I wonder how much sense it would make on an A340-500...

Yes . As now TG JJ nearly got rid of them , if the A343 is attractive , the A345 should make it better .

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 23):

I see RJ as a perfect candidate. Their A310 freighters are aging and their 787s are coming in 2014, that leaves the A342's. They look like perfect candidates.

I think this is really geared towards those using A300/310 freighters.

Quite true . Theses A342 could easily replace the aging A310F

Regards
dennys
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:23 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 42):
Isn't the A380 at least as quiet, if not quieter?

Sure it is, but isn't the alternative. Fact is many passemgers from France pay more for a ticket with LH 340 via FRA than AF 77W direct, and far lower noise is part of the reason, cramped seating the other.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:34 pm

Quoting dennys (Reply 43):
if the A343 is attractive , the A345 should make it better

IMO, the A340-500 would be about the worst platform out there to turn into a converted freighter due to the very high OEW.

Their future is VIP birds or beer cans.
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4595
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:38 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
Of course, a 767-2C would not be able to take LD3s in the lower deck like the A310F and I expect main deck pallet dimensions would be a bit more generous on the A310 than the 767.

Still, for FX, a 767-2C would probably fit the bill as an A310F replacement and would complement their 767-300F fleet.

FX is already rolling out the LD2 for the 763 lower deck so that would not be a concern regarding the 762. That said...it ain't gonna happen. The niche for the A310F is ever shrinking due to the advent of the 757 and the presence of the A306. FX has gotten very good with a/c utilization, using more tag-on flights than ever with every type in the fleet, and they are parking the 310s.
 
trex8
Posts: 4605
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:43 pm

Couple of points,

if the worlds largest carrier DL can survive on belly freight and got rid of their freighters I doubt not being able to handle main deck height pallets etc is the end of the world and it looks like AF is going that way too

doesn't the A340 have a nose down attitude also like the A330

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
That is all before you get to the fact the A-340F would be a gas guzzeler.

relative to what- an A330? certainly not a 772 which burns as much fuel as a A343 (but has higher payload)
 
tsnamm
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:28 am

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:59 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 47):
if the worlds largest carrier DL can survive on belly freight and got rid of their freighters I doubt not being able to handle main deck height pallets etc is the end of the world and it looks like AF is going that way too

You are missing the point...what you are describing is NON freighter cargo lift...if you are going to utilize the main deck in a cargo configuration and then turn around and not be able to utilize 1/2 of the cube due to loading limitations, it becomes a contradiction of purpose...whether or not certain combination carriers are parking freighters is irrelevant...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11831
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned

Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:00 am

The more I read the in-depth posts, the more I wonder how these conversions would survive in a world of 777F, 763F (both new build and BCF),

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 7):
There are quite a few -400s for conversion, however there are a lot of operators (ANA, ANZ, JAL, Lufthansa, Air France) that are sending their retired airframes direct to the scrappers.

I believe the scrappings are happening due to

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 7):
I actually think that the 787 and A350 delays will excaberate the issue, with good 767s and A330s getting several more years of heavy use

I agree with you for a few years. But at the current A330 production rate and an eventually to be realized high 787 production rate... The life of these frames will be short. I believe we've permanently entered an environment of oil above $75/bbl (maybe a short excursion below for the election with the strategic petroleum reserve releases). Thus, even freighters, with their traditionally lower utilization rates, will gravitate towards more efficient frames.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 7):
It'll cause a crunch on the low end of the market and may make a freighter with a low payload like this (only 60t?) attractive if at a good pricce.

I think it will make 752BCFs that much more attractive.

I see a large number of conversion candidates approaching the market.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 9):
A343 can be bought for $15M only? If so that is really cheap!!!

Only if uncle Mo is paying the fuel bill. These will be very unique freighters. It will be tough to have the conversion costs low enough to justify the risk of financing such a unique type.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
For January 2012, monthly dry lease rate averages for the major types are:

Thank you. Healthier than I thought.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 18):
A good freighter has a high landing weight, a high zero fuel weight, and a modest range.

Watching the MEM-DXB flights, I would say there is some demand for range. However, those will be run at higher utilization and thus should be more efficient types.

Quoting breiz (Reply 30):
ATC: "well, could you start the 2 other engines please?"

  

The disadvantage of disproportionate, for the era's technology, compression on the low spool. It means a lower available climb thrust vs. cruise thrust for a given wear rate.

Quoting Coronado (Reply 35):
Very few air freight pallets weigh much more than 600 lbs now days

Which industry? I'd love to know the allocation. Electronics, pharma, express parts/machine tools, and oil equipment were the dominant sources of freight (outside of FedEx/UPS/DHL) last I looked. The first two have light pallets. The last two are heavy pallets.

In my industry, we have far heavier pallets.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
I stand by my statement the B-767F and A-340F will carry about the same weight loads, with the B-767F being able to carry taller cargo, if needed. The B-767F will burn at least 35%-40% less fuel than the A-340F will.

IMHO, this kills A343 conversion economics.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
Still, for FX, a 767-2C would probably fit the bill as an A310F replacement and would complement their 767-300F fleet.

I see any improvement for the 767-2C going into the 763F. That would help the AirForce economics and result in a freighter with far better resale value.   

The more I think about an A343F concept.. the more I think it won't have many (if any) customers. Seriously, what happens once A350 and 787 production is established enough that Airbus has a need to be aggressive in marketing A330F or resale drops enough on the A333 to enable those conversions? The window for this conversion is short.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain

Who is online