Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
JAM747
Topic Author
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:17 am

Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:39 am

I know Airbus has been successful with the A300 freighter but why no A340 freighter version? I have never seen or read about any mention of one. I would think that a A340 freighter would allow it to carry heavier payload and do longer range than the A300. Could the current passenger version of the A340 be converted to all cargo versions especially when they get older? I wonder how it would perform compared to the MD11 and 747 freighters if it was to be designed or converted from pass versions.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:43 am

Maybe the 777-200LRF took/will take the orders away if they did convert the 340 into a freighter. I guess it also depends on the 340 version; the -300, -500, or -600?

I'm not quite sure myself, just a guess on my part.
 
User avatar
B742
Posts: 3595
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:48 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:50 am

I can see the A340-600F being quite succesful (maybe not as much now due to the 777-200LRF), the length of the A340-600 is massive, a lot of cargo could be carried!

Only problem would be height and width of the cargo, would it manage large
pallets?

Also the A340-500F would be good, due to the A340-500's range, but I think the 777-200LRF has this market covered now!

Rob!  Smile
 
A350
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:53 am

There is a thread about the possibility of a A350 freighter here. I think this has become a much higher probability to become reality. However, I could imagine a A332/A342/A343 freighter conversion program in the next years.

A350
 
CPH757
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:40 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:11 am

I would love to see a 340-300 Freighter with five of those hairdryer engines on each wing, to make that plane fly  wink 
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:11 am

^I was checking the 772F range on boeing's website, and I must say I expect it to be higher.
People call it 772 LRF, but I think 772F is more logical(Boeing calls it 777 freighter, not 777 long range freighter), because it's range is nothing special.(9200km)
That's the range of a 744ERF, and significantly less than the range of a 380F(10400km).

I know it was devoloped along with the longer range -200 and -300 passenger versions, but I don't think it's logical to call the 772F the 772LRF.
 
A350
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:37 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 5):
^I was checking the 772F range on boeing's website, and I must say I expect it to be higher.
People call it 772 LRF, but I think 772F is more logical(Boeing calls it 777 freighter, not 777 long range freighter), because it's range is nothing special.(9200km)
That's the range of a 744ERF, and significantly less than the range of a 380F(10400km).

I know it was devoloped along with the longer range -200 and -300 passenger versions, but I don't think it's logical to call the 772F the 772LRF.

Freighters make money by carrying cargo, not fuel. Cargo doesn't complain about refueling stops. It would certainly no problem to add extra fuel tanks in the belly of the 77F, it's just not economical.

A350
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:35 am

I think the only freighter versions of the A-340 will be when they retire from airline service and start to convert the A-340-200/300 to "F" models. It may be 10 more years before we see a A-340-500F/600F.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:56 am

Quoting A350 (Reply 6):
Freighters make money by carrying cargo, not fuel. Cargo doesn't complain about refueling stops. It would certainly no problem to add extra fuel tanks in the belly of the 77F, it's just not economical.

Right...the A380 can get that kind of range on max cargo loads because it's structurally far more limited than the 777F. Lots of space, but you can't fill it to the brim with heavy cargo. If you could, it'd be an impressive freighter that cargo companies would be falling over themselves to order. As it is, interest has been limited to package carriers who see big dollar signs on that much space in one flight.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:02 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 5):
I don't think it's logical to call the 772F the 772LRF.

I agree, since there is no 777-200LRF it makes no sense to call it that.

The plane is the 777-200F.

N
 
Avianca
Posts: 5377
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:30 am

Quoting B742 (Reply 2):
Only problem would be height and width of the cargo, would it manage large
pallets?

it could trasnport at least Q6 MD positions, same as the A380 can.
 
mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:35 am

freighter, not 777 long range freighter), because it's range is nothing special.(9200km)
That's the range of a 744ERF, and significantly less than the range of a 380F(10400km).


sure, but the A380 can only carry light freight, while the 777 is a real power freighter, designed to carry heavy metal  Smile
 
Avianca
Posts: 5377
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:41 am

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 11):
sure, but the A380 can only carry light freight, while the 777 is a real power freighter, designed to carry heavy metal

do not think so + both aircraft can not carry big oversized shpts.
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:58 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 5):
^I was checking the 772F range on boeing's website, and I must say I expect it to be higher.
People call it 772 LRF, but I think 772F is more logical(Boeing calls it 777 freighter, not 777 long range freighter), because it's range is nothing special.(9200km)
That's the range of a 744ERF, and significantly less than the range of a 380F(10400km).

I know it was devoloped along with the longer range -200 and -300 passenger versions, but I don't think it's logical to call the 772F the 772LRF.

People refer to it as a 772LRF because it uses the same engines and airframe as the 772LR. The main reason the range is not that great is that the airframe can lift very dense loads. This is a structural thing, the A380 can't do this, the structure was never designed to lift dense loads, it was always aimed at volume. Once the maximum payload is reached you then fill it up with fuel to max taxi weight and go on your way. On the other hand you could fill it up with fuel and then add payload to max taxi weight, this would give a much greater range but you wouldn't be able to carry anything like as much.
 
trex8
Posts: 5694
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:34 am

so if NG/EADS ever make a KC30 for the USAF (or anyone else) will it still be A330 based or will they base it on the A350 or will it be a composite of the 2 designs?? maybe A330 structure with A350 engines and some other systems???
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:31 am

I'm going to do a chart comparing the 772F with the 380F, for comparing the "densities" of the cargo.

B772F: Max payload: 103 ton / Total volume: 636 cu m / Density: 162 kg/(cu m)

A380F: Max payload: 152 ton / Total volume: 938 cu m / Density: 162 kg/(cu m)

??? Honestly I wasn't expecting this result... wasn't trying to prove the 380f was a heavy lift or something.... just comparing...

But for my calculations, the 380F can be loaded with cargo as dense as the 772F can.  Confused
 
ha763
Posts: 3201
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:35 pm

Quoting Avianca (Reply 12):
Quoting MauriceB (Reply 11):
sure, but the A380 can only carry light freight, while the 777 is a real power freighter, designed to carry heavy metal

do not think so + both aircraft can not carry big oversized shpts.

Heavy does not equate to oversized. "Heavy" is in reference to the density of the cargo.

Quoting A360 (Reply 15):
But for my calculations, the 380F can be loaded with cargo as dense as the 772F can.

I don't know how you came up with that, but the A380F and 777F will not have the same cargo density rating. The 777F will be designed to have the highest cargo density rating at 9.9lbs per cu ft. The 747F has a cargo density rating of 9.8lbs per cu ft. Everything I have seen says that the A380F will have a cargo density rating of 8lbs per cu ft.
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:45 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
I think the only freighter versions of the A-340 will be when they retire from airline service and start to convert the A-340-200/300 to "F" models. It may be 10 more years before we see a A-340-500F/600F.

A342 and 3 definetly won't make good freighters. They are underpowered as it is, in the freight role they'd be limited rangewise and limited to fields with only the longest runways. A345 is a possibility however, I believe it's engines are a little more powerful.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:23 pm

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 17):
A342 and 3 definetly won't make good freighters. They are underpowered as it is, in the freight role they'd be limited rangewise and limited to fields with only the longest runways.

To quote an Airbus spokesman in an interview from 2002 or 2003 which was published in a German aerospace magazine: "Several airlines have told us they think the A342 would be a good freighter. If there is enough interest, we may proceed with the project."

And as for the myth that they are underpowered, it´s just not true. Once again I have to point to the AF SXM-CDG flights operated by A343, nonstop. "Flex-Trust" is the magic word.
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:23 pm

Quoting Ha763 (Reply 16):
I don't know how you came up with that, but the A380F and 777F will not have the same cargo density rating.

You don't know? You haven't read the hole post then:

Quoting A360 (Reply 15):
going to do a chart comparing the 772F with the 380F, for comparing the "densities" of the cargo.

B772F: Max payload: 103 ton / Total volume: 636 cu m / Density: 162 kg/(cu m)

A380F: Max payload: 152 ton / Total volume: 938 cu m / Density: 162 kg/(cu m)

Those density valors are rounded to the unity.

I'm going to put in in lbs/cu ft.
B772F: 162kg/(cu m) = 4.59 kg/(cu ft) = 10.20 lbs/(cu ft)
A380F: 162kg/(cu m) = 4.59 kg/(cu ft) = 10.20 lbs/(cu ft)


There may be some error in the values i'm using... do you happen to know what is wrong?

PS: All the valors are rounded... it's not very accurate, but even so, it doesn't explain why both aircrafts have so similar cargo density capabilities.

[Edited 2005-10-15 14:27:16]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16323
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:00 pm

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 17):
A342 and 3 definetly won't make good freighters. They are underpowered as it is, in the freight role they'd be limited rangewise and limited to fields with only the longest runways.

A342 ISA+20 S/L MTOW - TODR = 3260 m
A343 ISA+20 S/L MTOW - TODR = 3380 m
A345 ISA+20 S/L MTOW - TODR = 3550 m
A346 ISA+20 S/L MTOW - TODR = 3550 m
B744 ISA+20 S/L MTOW - TODR = 3600 m

Note distances these will vary depending on the engine fitted to the airfame.

Guess 340 freighters will happen, still see DC8 and 707 freighters about.
 
JFK998
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:39 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:50 am

As a person who has worked in the Cargo business for a long time, I could say this: the A340 aircraft would not make sense as a primary freighter in any way. However, as a passenger and cargo aircraft, (that is probably the only use it will have in any degree to cargo tonnage) it does make sense as it could travel extremely long distances without having to refuel, that is the main key. But other than that, I really couldn't imagine the A340 Freighter, just doesn't seem sensible. The A340-200/300 definitely would not be a good freighter at all as they really do not hold so much cargo as compared to the A340-500/600 series which holds more than the 200/300 series. It may be possible Airbus would make a freighter version of the A340-500/600, that would be more sensible, however I cant think of really too many airlines that would consider buying it. But to make one of the 200/300, first off no airline would even think of buying the 200/300 because it doesn't travel nearly as far as the 500/600 series and also does not hold as much cargo as the 500/600 series.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:08 am

Quoting JFK998 (Reply 21):
Reply 21

JFK998, see my post above.
And even if they don´t hold as much cargo as the B772F, you have to recognize that there is a gap between the B767F/A300F and bigger aircraft. While filling the gap capacity-wise, the A340F could fly further than the B767F and therefore eliminate fuel stops on growing routes which are too small for a MD11 or bigger aircraft.
 
ha763
Posts: 3201
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:49 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 19):
There may be some error in the values i'm using... do you happen to know what is wrong?

PS: All the valors are rounded... it's not very accurate, but even so, it doesn't explain why both aircrafts have so similar cargo density capabilities.

Actually, I think I do now know what is wrong. Cargo density is not calculated by using only the max payload and volume. The strength of the structure, especially the floor, plays the major role and this is missing from your calculation.
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:20 am

^I see!
....................(enlarging message so that it cumplies with minimum requirements)
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15781
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:11 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
I agree, since there is no 777-200LRF it makes no sense to call it that.

The plane is the 777-200F.



Correct, but the 772F is based on the 772LR, so calling it a 772LRF is a misnomer but not 100% incorrect.

Same with the 767-300F. Based on the 763ER (ie, not the 763-nonER) but still officially called the 763F (and unofficially, the 763ERF).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16323
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:42 am

Quoting Ha763 (Reply 23):
Cargo density is not calculated by using only the max payload and volume. The strength of the structure, especially the floor, plays the major role and this is missing from your calculation.

Thats not true, if you have something really heavy, it just loaded on a pallet to increase the floor area that it rests on.

Have taken really heavy machinery parts before by air, resting them on the floor would exceed the floor loading limit, put them on a pallet they are fine.

I see 340F conversion happening in the future, not for a while, and not new from the factory. The 342 could only take around 85t (MTOW about 257t MZFW around 169t), 343 93t (MTWO 257t MZFW 172t).

The 772F will be a freighter from day 1 and will take around 100t with a higher purchase/lease price.

The 772F will take over from the MD11 which used to fill the 90-100t payload bracket.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:47 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
Thats not true, if you have something really heavy, it just loaded on a pallet to increase the floor area that it rests on.

That just means you're trading in one area from another. Loading a small heavy piece of cargo onto a larger pallet to distrubute the load takes more of your volumetric space away. You don't gain anything by doing that, in terms of the weight ratios. You can load N Kg per meter, how you manage individual pieces so that they fit that number doesn't change the number.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:52 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
Thats not true, if you have something really heavy, it just loaded on a pallet to increase the floor area that it rests on.

Also not true. Floor loads are usually measured in Wt per Area and the floors are designed accordingly. Putting a load on a pallet will change a point load (like a leg on a machine tool) but the over all floor loading will remain the same unless the pallet exceeds the cargo dimensions by a significant amount.

If the pallet is too large compared to the cargo, you're losing other revenue cargo, something no freight carrier likes to do.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16323
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:27 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 28):
Also not true. Floor loads are usually measured in Wt per Area and the floors are designed accordingly. Putting a load on a pallet will change a point load (like a leg on a machine tool) but the over all floor loading will remain the same unless the pallet exceeds the cargo dimensions by a significant amount.

True floor loads are pressures, and density mass/volume. Get paid by the kg, or by the volume depending if it is cubing out or by mass. 20t of general freight or 20 t of machinery parts, generally still get charged for 20t (depending on your contract, some are volume based), just it looks like more if you have the general freight onboard. General freight in lots of containers/overpacks, parts on a few pallets/overpacks, quicker to load the parts, less of them.

Havent heard them complain about the cost of moving machiney parts, flowers you hear them complain about the bulk and little weight.
 
stirling
Posts: 3896
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:44 pm

When the A380F comes out, will it essentially be a triple-decker?
Or.

Is the second deck removed for greater volume?
Or.

Is that second deck integral to the strength of the fuselage?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Why No A340 Freighter?

Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:04 pm

Quoting Stirling (Reply 30):
When the A380F comes out, will it essentially be a triple-decker?
Or.

Is the second deck removed for greater volume?
Or.

Is that second deck integral to the strength of the fuselage?

Good questions. I don't have any inside knowledge on this but, going back to basic engineering principles, Airbus could have made the upper deck floor removable, but doing so would have required a stiffer and heavier fuselage. Therefore, I would wager that the upper deck floor is integral.

I don't see that it matters much in most situations. 96 inch high pallets can be loaded on the main deck. With typical cargo densities, loading the lower and main decks would use up all the available payload capacity of the A380F. The upper deck would be empty space anyway (except for small package carriers like FedEx, DHL, and UPS). Cargo haulers could use the WhaleJet's upper deck for very light weight urgent freight such as flowers.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos