Air Tahiti Nui has retired F-OSUN, its 3rd (of 5) A343s. Wouldn't normally be a huge deal, but it performed a 3 engine ferry PPT-HNL-VCV and arrived this morning. Crew was apparently from Madrid and specially contracted to do this flight.

Damn cool video and pictures of takeoff from PPT:



And from HNL, hnlramper and sandyl0vesyou marveling at what bad shape it's in.



Talk about curvature of the earth...

That first pic's pretty awesome, great capture!

Interesting, I guess no point fixing up a busted engine if able if you're just flying it to its graveyard.

That first pic is stunning, looks like it has afterburners. Never seen anything like that glow from behind the engines on any commercial airliner turbofan before.

mrpippy wrote:

Talk about curvature of the earth...

Not sure what you mean by that. The 3 engine takeoff performance is predicated on the failure of another engine, that is why they would have stopped in HNL as they would have reduced fuel load out of PPT.

The A340 can fly on just one engine.

It looks as if the center main gear is not touching the ground. As it flys passed the camera, the landing lights appear under the wheels but the mains are still planted on the runway.

I'm sure that engine met lease return terms.

The curvature of the earth, well played.

FlyThiz wrote:

It looks as if the center main gear is not touching the ground. As it flys passed the camera, the landing lights appear under the wheels but the mains are still planted on the runway.

Years ago I read in the tech ops forum that this is pretty normal for an A343 under light loads. The centre main gear is only there to support the fuselage under heavier takeoff weights. Not sure if that is unique to this type of aircraft or whether MD-11s also have this feature.

a320fan wrote:

Interesting, I guess no point fixing up a busted engine if able if you're just flying it to its graveyard.

Very unlikely for the engines. They'll be removed upon arrival and placed into whatever storage the owner/lease holder specifies. The supply of CFM56-5Cs is miniscule as it is, so they probably won't be idle for long.

soyuz wrote:

Years ago I read in the tech ops forum that this is pretty normal for an A343 under light loads. The centre main gear is only there to support the fuselage under heavier takeoff weights. Not sure if that is unique to this type of aircraft or whether MD-11s also have this feature.

Indeed. At the completion of almost every flight, the center gear tires do not touch the ground. Somewhere I have a picture of this aircraft (It used to overnight at LAX quite a lot) with both my hands in the space between the tire and the ground.

And just as aside (I don't know if anyone else here has ever done this one), but it is kind of a really strange thing to change an Aircraft Tire without a jack.


But no, this is not the case for the MD11. Those are just about always carrying weight. One of the easy ways to tell that is the fact that the MD11 Center Gears have brakes installed. The A343s do not.

Great video! Thanks for posting.

It's always sad seeing an aircraft take its last flight.
All those people who flew on her - going on a holiday, going to visit family, leaving family, all the different reasons, and all flown on that plane.

zeke wrote:

mrpippy wrote:

Talk about curvature of the earth...

Not sure what you mean by that. The 3 engine takeoff performance is predicated on the failure of another engine, that is why they would have stopped in HNL as they would have reduced fuel load out of PPT.

The A340 can fly on just one engine.

One engine with full fuel and load (obviously not in this case) but no , it can stay aloft barley. I wouldn’t say it could properly fly without two specially the 200 & 300

I flew this aircraft in 2016 from LAX-PPT-LAX.

It was in rough shape and definitely uncomfortable and had dated features.

I won’t miss it. Won’t miss LH’s 343’s either.
Too many of those slow 4holers from DFW to FRA back in the day.

Sorry won’t miss them one bit. Will look forward to going back to Tahiti in their 789’s!

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

But no, this is not the case for the MD11. Those are just about always carrying weight. One of the easy ways to tell that is the fact that the MD11 Center Gears have brakes installed. The A343s do not.

The MD-11 can be dispatched without the center gear, though: viewtopic.php?t=1363183

what a sad thing!
passenger widebody panorama is getting day by day more boring.
in the next years, there will be only 4 models at all.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

a320fan wrote:

Interesting, I guess no point fixing up a busted engine if able if you're just flying it to its graveyard.

Very unlikely for the engines. They'll be removed upon arrival and placed into whatever storage the owner/lease holder specifies. The supply of CFM56-5Cs is miniscule as it is, so they probably won't be idle for long.

soyuz wrote:

Years ago I read in the tech ops forum that this is pretty normal for an A343 under light loads. The centre main gear is only there to support the fuselage under heavier takeoff weights. Not sure if that is unique to this type of aircraft or whether MD-11s also have this feature.

Indeed. At the completion of almost every flight, the center gear tires do not touch the ground. Somewhere I have a picture of this aircraft (It used to overnight at LAX quite a lot) with both my hands in the space between the tire and the ground.

And just as aside (I don't know if anyone else here has ever done this one), but it is kind of a really strange thing to change an Aircraft Tire without a jack.


But no, this is not the case for the MD11. Those are just about always carrying weight. One of the easy ways to tell that is the fact that the MD11 Center Gears have brakes installed. The A343s do not.

Do these retract or something. Because how does the plane decide whether it needs the center gear or not or is it just they weight that forces it down??

FatCat wrote:

what a sad thing!

In your opinion.

Personally quite happy to see the inefficient go to the wayside, and make room for the advanced.

texdravid wrote:

Sorry won’t miss them one bit. Will look forward to going back to Tahiti in their 789’s!

This old A340 has nicer more spacious seating than a brand new 789.

zeke wrote:

mrpippy wrote:

Talk about curvature of the earth...

Not sure what you mean by that. The 3 engine takeoff performance is predicated on the failure of another engine, that is why they would have stopped in HNL as they would have reduced fuel load out of PPT.

The A340 can fly on just one engine.

I guess mrpippy was pointing at the old saying that the 340 only takes off due to curvature of the Earth, and that's during normal operation with all 4 engines active. Who knows, maybe Mother Earth held her breath for a while so that the aircraft could find its way into the air

There should still be some life left in this old gal - perhaps Mahan Air might be interested to get hold of it, now that it is not able to get spanking new planes from the factory...

Sad to see her go. Lovely bird and one of the best looking schemes out there. Seems sad to me that everyone cheering her demise (which is a weird thing to do anyway) seems to be doing so on the basis that she is an Airbus, and inefficient. One wonders whether they will be quite as cheery when AA or UA start retiring their 772ERs which are about as efficient as an A343 and certainly nowhere near as exciting from a spotting point of view. Never understood why some aviation fans want to get rid of all the three and four holers and have everything a variation on a boring two hole design. Is it OCD I wonder?

Anyway it is not for the likes of I to tell others how to conduct their hobby. My personal view is that these were lovely birds, to look at and no doubt to fly on - an exotic and precious rarity that most of us never got to see, whisking passengers to a remote and mysterious island paradise. A curvy, sleek and beautiful island lady that takes your breath away and makes you smile when you remember fondly the first time you saw her. If that doesn't get you excited as a plane geek and aviation fan then I am not sure what to say to you. If you cant appreciate that because she's an Airbus, then it is a sad indictment indeed. Whilst many of you lot wont be lamenting her trip to the desert and a lonely, dusty demise a million miles from the turquoise and emerald paradise she lived and served in, I will.

There is no doubt their 789 is a more advanced cabin experience but she's just another plastic twin in a world filled with generic plastic twins.

Is that really progress, I wonder?

In our headlong rush for money money money and more money, have we lost some of the soul of it all?

Farewell Moorea. Aviation was better for having you in it. Rest well old girl.

Gorgeous looking aircraft still.

Karlsands wrote:

One engine with full fuel and load (obviously not in this case) but no , it can stay aloft barley. I wouldn’t say it could properly fly without two specially the 200 & 300

Depends on the height you are at, it flies and ok on one engine. You can manage to landing it if you had the height to jettison.

Flying the 340 on two engines was way easier than the 747, had to perform them during our simulator checks.

Why are the engines glowing? I've never seen that on a subsonic airliner.

Strato2 wrote:

texdravid wrote:

Sorry won’t miss them one bit. Will look forward to going back to Tahiti in their 789’s!

This old A340 has nicer more spacious seating than a brand new 789.

Plus it doesn't have the dimming windows with the STUPID crew-override feature which makes the 787 the absolute worst airliner for the true avgeeks, what's the point of paying extra to select a window seat when you have zero control over your window?!

LAX772LR wrote:

FatCat wrote:

what a sad thing!

In your opinion.

Personally quite happy to see the inefficient go to the wayside, and make room for the advanced.

Yes by the way it's my opinion.
But what is the footprint that building a new plane takes?
Agree a more modern plane will use less fuel to do the same job.
But the whole process of building a new plane isn't "carbon free".
It's the same thing as for old cars and brand new electric cars. The lifecycle of an electric car is everything but carbon free. And also, an electric car cannot be really eco-friendly until 100% of the materials, and the processes involving it are 100% carbon free, which obviously they aren't.
That's why I personally think that it is right, and inevitable scrapping an old plane at the structural end of its life.
Not agree though, that scrapping / putting out of service a plane that hasn't reached its end of life is an ecological choice, if this was your point.
It is surely more economically convenient, as spending money on a lease plan of a new plane makes more sense than spending slightly less money on a lease plan of an older plane.
And also, it is better to spend money (=make new investments) than keeping as cash, as you do not pay taxes on losses, as you do on earnings.
This A343 surely was at the end of its life. But take, for example, its bigger, younger brother, an A346: still has plenty of life ahead. Still an appreciated plane by the public. Also, pretty technological.
Trading and A346 for an A359, as an example, doesn't make a lot of sense, on the ecological side, in my opinion. Also doesn't on the economical side, always in my opinion.
But by the way, I am not an Accounting VP in an Airline, but in another industry, so I'm not really inside the plane's market.
Would be thrilled to learn more, BTW.
Thanks!

FatCat wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

FatCat wrote:

what a sad thing!

In your opinion.

Personally quite happy to see the inefficient go to the wayside, and make room for the advanced.

Yes by the way it's my opinion.
But what is the footprint that building a new plane takes?
Agree a more modern plane will use less fuel to do the same job.
But the whole process of building a new plane isn't "carbon free".
It's the same thing as for old cars and brand new electric cars. The lifecycle of an electric car is everything but carbon free. And also, an electric car cannot be really eco-friendly until 100% of the materials, and the processes involving it are 100% carbon free, which obviously they aren't.
That's why I personally think that it is right, and inevitable scrapping an old plane at the structural end of its life.
Not agree though, that scrapping / putting out of service a plane that hasn't reached its end of life is an ecological choice, if this was your point.
It is surely more economically convenient, as spending money on a lease plan of a new plane makes more sense than spending slightly less money on a lease plan of an older plane.
And also, it is better to spend money (=make new investments) than keeping as cash, as you do not pay taxes on losses, as you do on earnings.
This A343 surely was at the end of its life. But take, for example, its bigger, younger brother, an A346: still has plenty of life ahead. Still an appreciated plane by the public. Also, pretty technological.
Trading and A346 for an A359, as an example, doesn't make a lot of sense, on the ecological side, in my opinion. Also doesn't on the economical side, always in my opinion.
But by the way, I am not an Accounting VP in an Airline, but in another industry, so I'm not really inside the plane's market.
Would be thrilled to learn more, BTW.
Thanks!

Trading an A346 for an A359 makes plenty of sense. The A346 is overweight, inefficient and simply not cost effective for airlines. There is a reason it sold very poorly and is out of production currently. While the 77W and A359 will continue to fly the skies in hundreds for years to come.

Efficiency is relative for goodness sake.
This is an A340-300, a cutting edge aircraft in it's day, always a looker in my view and especially so in this scheme.

The future is B777-9X, Dreamliner and A350 / A330NEO, beautiful by any means but variety is dying. Not long now before the A346 passes into retirement, the A345 only has one commercial operator.

skipness1E wrote:

Efficiency is relative for goodness sake.

And of course in this case, the obvious context for that relativity is a 1980s design/1990s build, versus an aircraft designed and built in the current decade... let's not over-complicate.

skipness1E wrote:

but variety is dying.

Simple convergent evolution, usually the sign of peak efficiency for a design or niche.

We see it in nature, we see it in mechanics... it's the same reason that the evolution of a Flying Squirrel (left) and of a Sugar Glider (right) converged on the same design, in order to do the exact same thing; despite completely different origins.



Indicative that you're not going to do much better with the tube+wings+petroleum longhaul concept, than a wing-slung twinjet.
Hence essentially all modern designs gravitating toward that structure.

mxaxai wrote:

The MD-11 can be dispatched without the center gear, though: viewtopic.php?t=1363183

Sure. And?

A 747 can be dispatched with 3 engines if the appropriate CDLs are satisfied and relevant Ferry Permits are issued. That doesn't mean it's supposed to operate like that or that it's even remotely legal to do so on a commercial flight.

Just as an aside MD11s aren't dispatched without the center gear. It's still there, it's just pinned closed, as are the doors. I'm honestly not sure whether that's acceptable for commercial operations (the bulk of my experience is not MD11s), but it seems very unlikely. Keep in mind that any applicable CDL for this will have the aircraft significantly under Max Landing Wt as a restriction.

That's different to what happens with the A343. When dispatched, it's rare (to the point of notability) that a flight >4500mi will result in the Center Mains touching the ground upon landing. Whereas with the MD11, dispatched for normal ops will absolutely use the brakes on its Center Mains. That's the distinction I was answering earlier, FWIW.

Neat picture, btw...

Williamsb747 wrote:

Do these retract or something.

Unless they're locked out for MX reasons, no. I really need to find that pic, lol.

Williamsb747 wrote:

Because how does the plane decide whether it needs the center gear or not or is it just they weight that forces it down??

It really doesn't. The max extension on the Strut & Torque Link/Scissor Gear simply do not allow for the Tire Set to reach all the way to the ground when the center tanks are empty.

Incidentally, that flex limitation is what allows the A330 Family to get along without a center gear. For the A333, the MTOW is more than 40.000kg greater than the A343's MLW. As there's been no significant issues with the A333 resultingly, it shows that there was really never a consistent need for the 342/43's Center Gear outside of MTOW situations.

And with how close the A33Ns are getting to the 343 for MTOW, still w/o the Center Gear, I am somewhat curious as to just how necessary that ever was anyway...

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

The MD-11 can be dispatched without the center gear, though: viewtopic.php?t=1363183

Sure. And?

A 747 can be dispatched with 3 engines if the appropriate CDLs are satisfied and relevant Ferry Permits are issued. That doesn't mean it's supposed to operate like that or that it's even remotely legal to do so on a commercial flight.

Just as an aside MD11s aren't dispatched without the center gear. It's still there, it's just pinned closed, as are the doors. I'm honestly not sure whether that's acceptable for commercial operations (the bulk of my experience is not MD11s), but it seems very unlikely. Keep in mind that any applicable CDL for this will have the aircraft significantly under Max Landing Wt as a restriction.

That's different to what happens with the A343. When dispatched, it's rare (to the point of notability) that a flight >4500mi will result in the Center Mains touching the ground upon landing. Whereas with the MD11, dispatched for normal ops will absolutely use the brakes on its Center Mains. That's the distinction I was answering earlier, FWIW.

Neat picture, btw...

Williamsb747 wrote:

Do these retract or something.

Unless they're locked out for MX reasons, no. I really need to find that pic, lol.

Williamsb747 wrote:

Because how does the plane decide whether it needs the center gear or not or is it just they weight that forces it down??

It really doesn't. The max extension on the Strut & Torque Link/Scissor Gear simply do not allow for the Tire Set to reach all the way to the ground when the center tanks are empty.

Incidentally, that flex limitation is what allows the A330 Family to get along without a center gear. For the A333, the MTOW is more than 40.000kg greater than the A343's MLW. As there's been no significant issues with the A333 resultingly, it shows that there was really never a consistent need for the 342/43's Center Gear outside of MTOW situations.

And with how close the A33Ns are getting to the 343 for MTOW, still w/o the Center Gear, I am somewhat curious as to just how necessary that ever was anyway...

BA flew a commercial flight when an engine failed on takeoff and continued to London on three engines.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... F088BCA0F2

mxaxai wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

But no, this is not the case for the MD11. Those are just about always carrying weight. One of the easy ways to tell that is the fact that the MD11 Center Gears have brakes installed. The A343s do not.

The MD-11 can be dispatched without the center gear, though: viewtopic.php?t=1363183

DC-10-30/40 could also operate without center gear, and the JAL domestic birds never used them, though I forget if they were pinned in place or the entire gear leg was removed.

Sorry to see these pretty blue TN birds go, I remember seeing them at LAX and thinking they were quite nice in contrast to all the UA battleship gray planes.

On another note I believe that the DC-10-30/40 and MD-11s have a lockout switch that if selected will prevent the center gear from lowering. I don't think that the gear itself has to be pinned to operate without it (although I would expect that the MEL would require the switch to be collared in the "retract" position).

CHRISBA35X wrote:

Sad to see her go. Lovely bird and one of the best looking schemes out there. Seems sad to me that everyone cheering her demise (which is a weird thing to do anyway) seems to be doing so on the basis that she is an Airbus, and inefficient.

Only you are somehow turning this into a manufacturer debate.

Yes, the 343 is inefficient and progress away to better and more efficient airframes is a good thing. The a340 was a necessity for a while, but its sister the a330 is the far superior aircraft. Same thing with the 773.. the 77W is leaps and bounds better, not shedding any tears on the early ones moving on.

Also the TN interiors on them are quite meh.

Boof02671 wrote:

BA flew a commercial flight when an engine failed on takeoff and continued to London on three engines.

The flight was still dispatched normally, the failure occurred in operation.

IIRC, the flight didn't go all the way to LON, but landed in MAN or somewhere near it, where BA had mtx. Question the wisdom of such an operation, TBH.

Spacepope wrote:

DC-10-30/40 could also operate without center gear, and the JAL domestic birds never used them, though I forget if they were pinned in place or the entire gear leg was removed.

So that would have been a longer term plan, given that the extra support was not needed. If there was an STC covering that condition, the leg could very well have been removed altogether, with the lines capped and associated actuators also taken off.

But if that's not there, than it would have had to be a CDL (not sure if there's a way to make those recurable w/out an STC though...), and they'd have been pinned. Would be neat to find out one way or the other though. . .

LAX772LR wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

BA flew a commercial flight when an engine failed on takeoff and continued to London on three engines.

The flight was still dispatched normally, the failure occurred in operation.


IIRC, the flight didn't go all the way to LON, but landed in MAN or somewhere near it, where BA had mtx. Question the wisdom of such an operation, TBH.

Correct on all counts. He's not wrong bring that up, per se, but it's important to note that it could never have taken off that way w/pax aboard.

IIRC, the captain was retiring soon anyway and knew discplinary action was a non-factor, though that part may be urban legend. What I do know is that that flight was closely monitored by BA DX and came close to landing early at several points along the way, as it finally did in the UK. I could swear that was GLA, but yeah, it could have been MAN.

In any case, it certainly wasn't sanctioned by the company, and probably not the smartest course of action (WRT the liability present should any further independent failures occur, etc...)

Last year we flew F-OJTN to Papeete. It was the first 343 to be replaced and for good reason. It was hot in the cabin and there were no individual air ducts to cool you off. My audio on the tiny seat-back entertainment system didn't work. That plane was the first to go, replaced by F-OMUA. We returned to LAX on F-OJGF and at least I had a larger screen and audio that worked: that plane is still flying for TN, as is F-OSEA. They do look pretty from the outside, but they really need to go to the desert.

The company was ok with it.

“After circling the Pacific for a few minutes while the captain contacted BA's control center, the crew decided to continue the 11-hour, 5,000 mile flight to Heathrow on three engines, rather than turn back and face a minimum five hour delay, at an estimated cost of nearly $200,000. Just three days before, a new EU regulation had come into force that would have required British Airways to compensate the passengers for long delays or cancellations.”

That page has another incredible video.

SloMo A343 landing and thrust reverse, with incredible clarity!

https://www.facebook.com/pyfspotters/vi ... 342871907/

L0VE2FLY wrote:

Why are the engines glowing? I've never seen that on a subsonic airliner.

They all do it, if you have the correct lighting conditions and angle to look up the tailpipe.

Being a 3 engine takeoff TOGA is mandatory, where TOGA is not usually used on most airliners all that often.

ikolkyo wrote:

Trading an A346 for an A359 makes plenty of sense. The A346 is overweight, inefficient and simply not cost effective for airlines. There is a reason it sold very poorly and is out of production currently. While the 77W and A359 will continue to fly the skies in hundreds for years to come.

Firstly this is an A343, not an A346.

Interesting perspective you have in the 77W considering the 346 didn’t burn that much more fuel and would lift more payload. The difference between the 77W and A35K is double the difference between the 77W and 346, the 77W being heavier, less range, less payload, and more fuel compared to the A35K, yet according to you it not inefficient.

UA735WL wrote:

Sorry to see these pretty blue TN birds go, I remember seeing them at LAX and thinking they were quite nice in contrast to all the UA battleship gray planes.

On another note I believe that the DC-10-30/40 and MD-11s have a lockout switch that if selected will prevent the center gear from lowering. I don't think that the gear itself has to be pinned to operate without it (although I would expect that the MEL would require the switch to be collared in the "retract" position).

It's apparently more involved than that. Username MD11Engineer had an excellent post on that about this procedure. It's about ten percent of the way down.

Still don't know if that's how they handled it at JAL for their 10-40s. But worth a read.

viewtopic.php?t=742615

Not all DC 10s were built with the extra landing gear.

viewtopic.php?t=738505

Boof02671 wrote:

Not all DC 10s were built with the extra landing gear.

viewtopic.php?t=738505

-10s and I believe -15s, yes. The rest have them.

Why were the cabin lights on during takeoff? And why would they be on if it’s a ferry flight?

a320fan wrote:

That first pic is stunning, looks like it has afterburners. Never seen anything like that glow from behind the engines on any commercial airliner turbofan before.

The Bae-146 would do it because the engines were GTFs. But why would the glow be visible on a CFM56? The “ball” of expanding LPT stages should block the view of anything hot enough to glow.

questions wrote:

Why were the cabin lights on during takeoff? And why would they be on if it’s a ferry flight?

Cabin lights are controlled in the cabin. The ferry flight would just have essential crew in the cockpit.

Sad to see the Airbus 340 leave the fleet. Flew on F-OSUN back in 2010. Loved it ! A far more elegant and pleasing to the eye aircraft than the the fat looking Boeing 787.

DocLightning wrote:

a320fan wrote:

That first pic is stunning, looks like it has afterburners. Never seen anything like that glow from behind the engines on any commercial airliner turbofan before.

The Bae-146 would do it because the engines were GTFs. But why would the glow be visible on a CFM56? The “ball” of expanding LPT stages should block the view of anything hot enough to glow.

Long Exposure is the best guess. I've seen plenty of 'heats' like that out the back of CFM56-3s back in my USAirways days, but to get it in a photo at most night-time ISOs shouldn't be more than a about 2-4 seconds... So, there's that...

questions wrote:

Why were the cabin lights on during takeoff? And why would they be on if it’s a ferry flight?

I would think it's the same reason the crew turns on the cabin lights for landing: if there was ever a need to evacuate in a hurry as unlikely as it may seem, you are better off having all the lights on to help you find an escape route should your choices be more limited than you would like. Same idea is true even if it's just a small number of crew on board.

Revelation wrote:

questions wrote:

Why were the cabin lights on during takeoff? And why would they be on if it’s a ferry flight?

I would think it's the same reason the crew turns on the cabin lights for landing: if there was ever a need to evacuate in a hurry as unlikely as it may seem, you are better off having all the lights on to help you find an escape route should your choices be more limited than you would like. Same idea is true even if it's just a small number of crew on board.

I actually think it's quite the opposite. At night the cabin lights are usually dimmed/turned off so in case of an evacuation the passenger's (and crew member's for that matter) eyes don't have to adapt to darkness so people can build situational awareness much quicker.

DocLightning wrote:

a320fan wrote:

That first pic is stunning, looks like it has afterburners. Never seen anything like that glow from behind the engines on any commercial airliner turbofan before.

The Bae-146 would do it because the engines were GTFs. But why would the glow be visible on a CFM56? The “ball” of expanding LPT stages should block the view of anything hot enough to glow.

Just showing off their bomber engine heritage. They really want to grow up and go on a B-1.

DocLightning wrote:

a320fan wrote:

That first pic is stunning, looks like it has afterburners. Never seen anything like that glow from behind the engines on any commercial airliner turbofan before.

The Bae-146 would do it because the engines were GTFs. But why would the glow be visible on a CFM56? The “ball” of expanding LPT stages should block the view of anything hot enough to glow.

Remember a few CFM56s glowing over the years.......





Seen it at night, pretty nice.......