Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LongHaulFTW
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:16 pm

A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:44 pm

With the 242t upgrade, the A330-300 can now fly even farther and carry even more than before. The 242t A330-300 has a fuel capacity of approximately 109.2t, and the A340-300 carries slightly more fuel at 110.4t. However, the range difference between the A330-300 and the A340-300 seems massive still (11,750km and 13,240km respectively). Given that both can carry a very similar amount of fuel, why is there still such a large range difference?

Links for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ifications
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:55 pm

Because the MTOW of an A340-300 is about 35 tonnes more. That’s a lot of extra fuel you can lift. Just because you have a similar amount of fuel you could load, doesn’t mean you can lift it with a typical load.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:18 pm

The A330-300 HGW and the A332 are cases where the fuel capacity is extremely high, but you can’t use all of it for commercially viable payloads. The A330-200 has flown ATL-SIN completely empty and full. As we can see with the 251t A330neo option, Airbus is making good use of the airframe.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13722
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:30 pm

LongHaul wrote:
Given that both can carry a very similar amount of fuel, why is there still such a large range difference?


Because those ranges are with passengers, of which a fully fueled 242t A333 can carry ~20, and the fully fueled A343 can fly 300+ pax.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
MON
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:54 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:05 pm

There is a clue to the 340-300’s greater MTOW in it’s extra center gear to the A330s.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13347
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:17 pm

The 251T A339 however, has closed the gap almost completely, offering 7200nm range with a full pax load.

That's greater than the MD11, equal to a 744, and only slightly behind where the A343 and early 772ERs were.

Not bad for an airframe that originally started out with barely the range of a 752.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
LongHaulFTW
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:16 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:15 am

So let me get this straight, the A330-300 cannot carry the same passenger payload AND fuel capacity at the same time as the A340-300 because it has a lower MTOW? So this would mean that the A330-300 would have to trade passenger capacity for fuel to achieve a similar range as the A340-300?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13722
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:20 am

LongHaulFTW wrote:
So let me get this straight, the A330-300 cannot carry the same passenger payload AND fuel capacity at the same time as the A340-300 because it has a lower MTOW? So this would mean that the A330-300 would have to trade passenger capacity for fuel to achieve a similar range as the A340-300?


Exactly.

The A339 is the first A330 to pretty much match the A343 in payload range.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
LongHaulFTW
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:16 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:57 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
LongHaulFTW wrote:
So let me get this straight, the A330-300 cannot carry the same passenger payload AND fuel capacity at the same time as the A340-300 because it has a lower MTOW? So this would mean that the A330-300 would have to trade passenger capacity for fuel to achieve a similar range as the A340-300?


Exactly.

The A339 is the first A330 to pretty much match the A343 in payload range.

Best regards
Thomas


It is indeed impressive to see what Airbus has done with the A330-300 airframe over time, I just wished that the range of the A339 was actually taken advantage of by operators instead of being wasted. Perhaps one day we'll see more A339's flying around when A333's are retired?
 
LH707330
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:53 pm

The outer engines on the 343 give the wing more bending relief than on the 333, which enables the higher MTOW. When you have those counterweights out there, you can fill the center wing tank and fuselage with more weight before you hit wing bending limitations. Pretty clever design, pity the CFM56-5C was cobbled together and didn't get enough upgrades to stay competitive vs the 777 engines.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:59 pm

LH707330 wrote:
The outer engines on the 343 give the wing more bending relief than on the 333, which enables the higher MTOW. When you have those counterweights out there, you can fill the center wing tank and fuselage with more weight before you hit wing bending limitations. Pretty clever design, pity the CFM56-5C was cobbled together and didn't get enough upgrades to stay competitive vs the 777 engines.


I wonder if the A340-300 with PW GTF or the CFM LEAP1A would be a competitive in today's market. A340-300 is really just an A330-300/900 with four instead of two engines, and an extra center landing gear due to higher MTOW.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:52 am

reidar76 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
The outer engines on the 343 give the wing more bending relief than on the 333, which enables the higher MTOW. When you have those counterweights out there, you can fill the center wing tank and fuselage with more weight before you hit wing bending limitations. Pretty clever design, pity the CFM56-5C was cobbled together and didn't get enough upgrades to stay competitive vs the 777 engines.


I wonder if the A340-300 with PW GTF or the CFM LEAP1A would be a competitive in today's market. A340-300 is really just an A330-300/900 with four instead of two engines, and an extra center landing gear due to higher MTOW.


That's a good question. Good thread on the 333/343 discussion from a few years ago: viewtopic.php?t=599359

Pulling points out of there (assume also all 333->339 updates also apply to the 349):

1. Engine weight might be an interesting one if the Wikipedia-quoted PW1133G weight of 2857 kg is apples-to-apples vs the CFM56-5C at 3990 kg, that would save 4.5t right there if it's true (if not, disregard the rest or add whatever weight delta and use the rough approximation of 1t = .5% fuel burn penalty at this weight)
2. The drag penalty for a quad will be higher for the bigger BPR, so figure a 1.5% loss vs the 1% loss on the 330
3. 7% of the 343's ~10% penalty is from older-gen engines, with the remaining 3% being from the 6t higher OEW (half each engines and center gear). If that OEW gap is cut by 4.5t due to lighter engines, there's only a 1.5t gap, 570 kg of which are eaten by the 339's heavier engines, leaving a net 900 kg penalty between the 339 and 349 for a ~.4% weight-induced burn deficit
4. On the engine SFC side, the T7000 is quoted as 11% better than the T700, and the GTF is billed as 16% better than the CFM56-5, which gets us a 5% relative improvement gap
5. Adding 2, 3 and 4 gets us +3% back of the napkin on fuel burn for a 349 vs 339, so now the consideration is whether engine mx will be cheaper on the mass-produced, but more numerous GTFs, and if so, will it be enough to outweigh the 2.5% fuel burn penalty?
6. The new winglet would still be ugly

I'd be curious to see better numbers on the engine weights and the OEW deltas. Either way, the 349 would fall between 2% (optimistically) and 5% worse than a 339 on fuel. Having the MTOW up at 275t would give it great range at MZFW, so it would be great at hauling pax and cargo out to 6000 nm, but in 95+% of cases, those capabilities would not be needed. Given that the 339 sells partly because it's cheap, the business case for a 349 wedged between the 339 and 359 just isn't there. The 359, with basically the same MTOW but more floow area, would offer more passenger revenue potential for similar trip burn, which would get us back to the discussion about the 343 vs 77E:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1375411

Much as I'd like to see the 340 continue, the numbers just don't work.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:57 am

LH707330 wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
The outer engines on the 343 give the wing more bending relief than on the 333, which enables the higher MTOW. When you have those counterweights out there, you can fill the center wing tank and fuselage with more weight before you hit wing bending limitations. Pretty clever design, pity the CFM56-5C was cobbled together and didn't get enough upgrades to stay competitive vs the 777 engines.


I wonder if the A340-300 with PW GTF or the CFM LEAP1A would be a competitive in today's market. A340-300 is really just an A330-300/900 with four instead of two engines, and an extra center landing gear due to higher MTOW.


That's a good question. Good thread on the 333/343 discussion from a few years ago: viewtopic.php?t=599359

Pulling points out of there (assume also all 333->339 updates also apply to the 349):

1. Engine weight might be an interesting one if the Wikipedia-quoted PW1133G weight of 2857 kg is apples-to-apples vs the CFM56-5C at 3990 kg, that would save 4.5t right there if it's true (if not, disregard the rest or add whatever weight delta and use the rough approximation of 1t = .5% fuel burn penalty at this weight)
2. The drag penalty for a quad will be higher for the bigger BPR, so figure a 1.5% loss vs the 1% loss on the 330
3. 7% of the 343's ~10% penalty is from older-gen engines, with the remaining 3% being from the 6t higher OEW (half each engines and center gear). If that OEW gap is cut by 4.5t due to lighter engines, there's only a 1.5t gap, 570 kg of which are eaten by the 339's heavier engines, leaving a net 900 kg penalty between the 339 and 349 for a ~.4% weight-induced burn deficit
4. On the engine SFC side, the T7000 is quoted as 11% better than the T700, and the GTF is billed as 16% better than the CFM56-5, which gets us a 5% relative improvement gap
5. Adding 2, 3 and 4 gets us +3% back of the napkin on fuel burn for a 349 vs 339, so now the consideration is whether engine mx will be cheaper on the mass-produced, but more numerous GTFs, and if so, will it be enough to outweigh the 2.5% fuel burn penalty?
6. The new winglet would still be ugly

I'd be curious to see better numbers on the engine weights and the OEW deltas. Either way, the 349 would fall between 2% (optimistically) and 5% worse than a 339 on fuel. Having the MTOW up at 275t would give it great range at MZFW, so it would be great at hauling pax and cargo out to 6000 nm, but in 95+% of cases, those capabilities would not be needed. Given that the 339 sells partly because it's cheap, the business case for a 349 wedged between the 339 and 359 just isn't there. The 359, with basically the same MTOW but more floow area, would offer more passenger revenue potential for similar trip burn, which would get us back to the discussion about the 343 vs 77E:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1375411

Much as I'd like to see the 340 continue, the numbers just don't work.


Thank you for an excellent post. I agree with your conclusion that there is absolutely no business case for an A330neo with 4 engines. Such an aircraft would also have a MTOW and a range close to the A350-900. I would think that the 3.7 meters extended wingspan of the A330neo would be beneficial for the A340, considering its higher MTOW.

Airbus has an A332/A342 "hybrid" in production, the A330 MRTT. This A330 variant has two under-wing refueling pods, taking the position of the A340 engine number 1 and 4. So we could say the A332 MRTT uses the A340 wing, which is the same, but with reinforced mounting locations and fuel system provisions for the A340's outboard engines.
 
United857
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:37 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:01 pm

reidar76 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
reidar76 wrote:

I wonder if the A340-300 with PW GTF or the CFM LEAP1A would be a competitive in today's market. A340-300 is really just an A330-300/900 with four instead of two engines, and an extra center landing gear due to higher MTOW.


That's a good question. Good thread on the 333/343 discussion from a few years ago: viewtopic.php?t=599359

Pulling points out of there (assume also all 333->339 updates also apply to the 349):

1. Engine weight might be an interesting one if the Wikipedia-quoted PW1133G weight of 2857 kg is apples-to-apples vs the CFM56-5C at 3990 kg, that would save 4.5t right there if it's true (if not, disregard the rest or add whatever weight delta and use the rough approximation of 1t = .5% fuel burn penalty at this weight)
2. The drag penalty for a quad will be higher for the bigger BPR, so figure a 1.5% loss vs the 1% loss on the 330
3. 7% of the 343's ~10% penalty is from older-gen engines, with the remaining 3% being from the 6t higher OEW (half each engines and center gear). If that OEW gap is cut by 4.5t due to lighter engines, there's only a 1.5t gap, 570 kg of which are eaten by the 339's heavier engines, leaving a net 900 kg penalty between the 339 and 349 for a ~.4% weight-induced burn deficit
4. On the engine SFC side, the T7000 is quoted as 11% better than the T700, and the GTF is billed as 16% better than the CFM56-5, which gets us a 5% relative improvement gap
5. Adding 2, 3 and 4 gets us +3% back of the napkin on fuel burn for a 349 vs 339, so now the consideration is whether engine mx will be cheaper on the mass-produced, but more numerous GTFs, and if so, will it be enough to outweigh the 2.5% fuel burn penalty?
6. The new winglet would still be ugly

I'd be curious to see better numbers on the engine weights and the OEW deltas. Either way, the 349 would fall between 2% (optimistically) and 5% worse than a 339 on fuel. Having the MTOW up at 275t would give it great range at MZFW, so it would be great at hauling pax and cargo out to 6000 nm, but in 95+% of cases, those capabilities would not be needed. Given that the 339 sells partly because it's cheap, the business case for a 349 wedged between the 339 and 359 just isn't there. The 359, with basically the same MTOW but more floow area, would offer more passenger revenue potential for similar trip burn, which would get us back to the discussion about the 343 vs 77E:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1375411

Much as I'd like to see the 340 continue, the numbers just don't work.


Thank you for an excellent post. I agree with your conclusion that there is absolutely no business case for an A330neo with 4 engines. Such an aircraft would also have a MTOW and a range close to the A350-900. I would think that the 3.7 meters extended wingspan of the A330neo would be beneficial for the A340, considering its higher MTOW.

Airbus has an A332/A342 "hybrid" in production, the A330 MRTT. This A330 variant has two under-wing refueling pods, taking the position of the A340 engine number 1 and 4. So we could say the A332 MRTT uses the A340 wing, which is the same, but with reinforced mounting locations and fuel system provisions for the A340's outboard engines.

Not quite the A340 wing. The leading edge slats are uninterrupted on the MRTT where the A340 outboard pylon is located due to the much smaller size of the refueling pod (essentially the MRTT is using the A330 slat configuration).

I also think the pod is significantly lighter than a CFM56-5C the A340 uses so I’m not sure the full A340 outboard engine strengthening is present.
A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A346 A388 B712 B733 B737 B738 B739 B744 B748 B752 B764 B772 B77L B77W B788 B789 CRJ2 E145 E75S E75L E190 MD88 MD90
AA AC B6 CA CX CZ DL EK FM HU JL KA LH LX MU NH NK TK UA US
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13722
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:34 pm

United857 wrote:
I also think the pod is significantly lighter than a CFM56-5C the A340 uses so I’m not sure the full A340 outboard engine strengthening is present.


If i recall correctly as long as the A340 was still being build, and a while after that, all A330 had the strengthening before Airbus cleaned it up.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:32 pm

reidar76 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
reidar76 wrote:

I wonder if the A340-300 with PW GTF or the CFM LEAP1A would be a competitive in today's market. A340-300 is really just an A330-300/900 with four instead of two engines, and an extra center landing gear due to higher MTOW.


That's a good question. Good thread on the 333/343 discussion from a few years ago: viewtopic.php?t=599359

Pulling points out of there (assume also all 333->339 updates also apply to the 349):

1. Engine weight might be an interesting one if the Wikipedia-quoted PW1133G weight of 2857 kg is apples-to-apples vs the CFM56-5C at 3990 kg, that would save 4.5t right there if it's true (if not, disregard the rest or add whatever weight delta and use the rough approximation of 1t = .5% fuel burn penalty at this weight)
2. The drag penalty for a quad will be higher for the bigger BPR, so figure a 1.5% loss vs the 1% loss on the 330
3. 7% of the 343's ~10% penalty is from older-gen engines, with the remaining 3% being from the 6t higher OEW (half each engines and center gear). If that OEW gap is cut by 4.5t due to lighter engines, there's only a 1.5t gap, 570 kg of which are eaten by the 339's heavier engines, leaving a net 900 kg penalty between the 339 and 349 for a ~.4% weight-induced burn deficit
4. On the engine SFC side, the T7000 is quoted as 11% better than the T700, and the GTF is billed as 16% better than the CFM56-5, which gets us a 5% relative improvement gap
5. Adding 2, 3 and 4 gets us +3% back of the napkin on fuel burn for a 349 vs 339, so now the consideration is whether engine mx will be cheaper on the mass-produced, but more numerous GTFs, and if so, will it be enough to outweigh the 2.5% fuel burn penalty?
6. The new winglet would still be ugly

I'd be curious to see better numbers on the engine weights and the OEW deltas. Either way, the 349 would fall between 2% (optimistically) and 5% worse than a 339 on fuel. Having the MTOW up at 275t would give it great range at MZFW, so it would be great at hauling pax and cargo out to 6000 nm, but in 95+% of cases, those capabilities would not be needed. Given that the 339 sells partly because it's cheap, the business case for a 349 wedged between the 339 and 359 just isn't there. The 359, with basically the same MTOW but more floow area, would offer more passenger revenue potential for similar trip burn, which would get us back to the discussion about the 343 vs 77E:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1375411

Much as I'd like to see the 340 continue, the numbers just don't work.


Thank you for an excellent post. I agree with your conclusion that there is absolutely no business case for an A330neo with 4 engines. Such an aircraft would also have a MTOW and a range close to the A350-900. I would think that the 3.7 meters extended wingspan of the A330neo would be beneficial for the A340, considering its higher MTOW.

Airbus has an A332/A342 "hybrid" in production, the A330 MRTT. This A330 variant has two under-wing refueling pods, taking the position of the A340 engine number 1 and 4. So we could say the A332 MRTT uses the A340 wing, which is the same, but with reinforced mounting locations and fuel system provisions for the A340's outboard engines.


What about 275t A338/A339 which would borrow the center gear of the A340? It would probably need more powerful engines than the 251t version though. It would be interesting to compare these 275t A338/9 to the A359 in terms of payload/range.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13722
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:39 am

tomcat wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:

That's a good question. Good thread on the 333/343 discussion from a few years ago: viewtopic.php?t=599359

Pulling points out of there (assume also all 333->339 updates also apply to the 349):

1. Engine weight might be an interesting one if the Wikipedia-quoted PW1133G weight of 2857 kg is apples-to-apples vs the CFM56-5C at 3990 kg, that would save 4.5t right there if it's true (if not, disregard the rest or add whatever weight delta and use the rough approximation of 1t = .5% fuel burn penalty at this weight)
2. The drag penalty for a quad will be higher for the bigger BPR, so figure a 1.5% loss vs the 1% loss on the 330
3. 7% of the 343's ~10% penalty is from older-gen engines, with the remaining 3% being from the 6t higher OEW (half each engines and center gear). If that OEW gap is cut by 4.5t due to lighter engines, there's only a 1.5t gap, 570 kg of which are eaten by the 339's heavier engines, leaving a net 900 kg penalty between the 339 and 349 for a ~.4% weight-induced burn deficit
4. On the engine SFC side, the T7000 is quoted as 11% better than the T700, and the GTF is billed as 16% better than the CFM56-5, which gets us a 5% relative improvement gap
5. Adding 2, 3 and 4 gets us +3% back of the napkin on fuel burn for a 349 vs 339, so now the consideration is whether engine mx will be cheaper on the mass-produced, but more numerous GTFs, and if so, will it be enough to outweigh the 2.5% fuel burn penalty?
6. The new winglet would still be ugly

I'd be curious to see better numbers on the engine weights and the OEW deltas. Either way, the 349 would fall between 2% (optimistically) and 5% worse than a 339 on fuel. Having the MTOW up at 275t would give it great range at MZFW, so it would be great at hauling pax and cargo out to 6000 nm, but in 95+% of cases, those capabilities would not be needed. Given that the 339 sells partly because it's cheap, the business case for a 349 wedged between the 339 and 359 just isn't there. The 359, with basically the same MTOW but more floow area, would offer more passenger revenue potential for similar trip burn, which would get us back to the discussion about the 343 vs 77E:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1375411

Much as I'd like to see the 340 continue, the numbers just don't work.


Thank you for an excellent post. I agree with your conclusion that there is absolutely no business case for an A330neo with 4 engines. Such an aircraft would also have a MTOW and a range close to the A350-900. I would think that the 3.7 meters extended wingspan of the A330neo would be beneficial for the A340, considering its higher MTOW.

Airbus has an A332/A342 "hybrid" in production, the A330 MRTT. This A330 variant has two under-wing refueling pods, taking the position of the A340 engine number 1 and 4. So we could say the A332 MRTT uses the A340 wing, which is the same, but with reinforced mounting locations and fuel system provisions for the A340's outboard engines.


What about 275t A338/A339 which would borrow the center gear of the A340? It would probably need more powerful engines than the 251t version though. It would be interesting to compare these 275t A338/9 to the A359 in terms of payload/range.


with stronger engine the vertical stabilizer may just be a wee bit to small for engine out conditions...

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
gloom
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:02 am

tomcat wrote:
What about 275t A338/A339 which would borrow the center gear of the A340? It would probably need more powerful engines than the 251t version though. It would be interesting to compare these 275t A338/9 to the A359 in terms of payload/range.


As you already said, it would be pointless. 275t 338/339 would essentially be 359. A ton or couple heavier due to less composites, a tad bit slower, but more or less it would perform quite similar. And would be much more complicated machine due to third main gear, and an expence without much reasoning behind.

Cheers,
Adam
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:58 am

tommy1808 wrote:
tomcat wrote:
reidar76 wrote:

Thank you for an excellent post. I agree with your conclusion that there is absolutely no business case for an A330neo with 4 engines. Such an aircraft would also have a MTOW and a range close to the A350-900. I would think that the 3.7 meters extended wingspan of the A330neo would be beneficial for the A340, considering its higher MTOW.

Airbus has an A332/A342 "hybrid" in production, the A330 MRTT. This A330 variant has two under-wing refueling pods, taking the position of the A340 engine number 1 and 4. So we could say the A332 MRTT uses the A340 wing, which is the same, but with reinforced mounting locations and fuel system provisions for the A340's outboard engines.


What about 275t A338/A339 which would borrow the center gear of the A340? It would probably need more powerful engines than the 251t version though. It would be interesting to compare these 275t A338/9 to the A359 in terms of payload/range.


with stronger engine the vertical stabilizer may just be a wee bit to small for engine out conditions...

best regards
Thomas


Interestingly, the 251t A339 comes with 72k lbs engines. It's only 6% more than the 68k lbs used on the 230t A330s which were also offered with 72k lbs engines. I guess that the increased wingspan/wing area of the NEO helps to limit the required thrust.

I agree that an increased thrust would challenge the vertical stabilizer but in this case, the A339 could borrow the current taller stabilizer of the A338.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13722
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:10 am

tomcat wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
tomcat wrote:

What about 275t A338/A339 which would borrow the center gear of the A340? It would probably need more powerful engines than the 251t version though. It would be interesting to compare these 275t A338/9 to the A359 in terms of payload/range.


with stronger engine the vertical stabilizer may just be a wee bit to small for engine out conditions...

best regards
Thomas

I guess that the increased wingspan/wing area of the NEO helps to limit the required thrust.


:checkmark:
Induced drag is reduced by the new, longer wings, less power needed upon rotation. Essentially what the 777x wing does for the 777, only the Boeing uses it to reduce thrust with the same MTOW, while Airbus uses that margin to add 9t of TOW.

I agree that an increased thrust would challenge the vertical stabilizer but in this case, the A339 could borrow the current taller stabilizer of the A338.


I never noticed that the A332 has a 1m higher vertical stabilizer ....

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:14 am

gloom wrote:
tomcat wrote:
What about 275t A338/A339 which would borrow the center gear of the A340? It would probably need more powerful engines than the 251t version though. It would be interesting to compare these 275t A338/9 to the A359 in terms of payload/range.


As you already said, it would be pointless. 275t 338/339 would essentially be 359. A ton or couple heavier due to less composites, a tad bit slower, but more or less it would perform quite similar. And would be much more complicated machine due to third main gear, and an expence without much reasoning behind.

Cheers,
Adam


I brought this suggestion as an alternative proposal to the hypothetical 275t A343NEO discussed above. A 275t A339 would logically be more competitive than this A343NEO. The only benefit of going to 4 engines is that it would easily allow the integration of very high BPR engines.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13722
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:22 am

tomcat wrote:
The only benefit of going to 4 engines is that it would easily allow the integration of very high BPR engines.


Not quite, it also gives you a lighter wing with those two counter weights way out there....

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
gloom
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:44 am

tomcat wrote:
A 275t A339 would logically be more competitive than this A343NEO.


Not quite.

A339 would be directly matched against 359. And not bring anything new but a few problems to solve.

A349 (let's call it that way) would have a couple of things not provided by A359. It would benefit from 4 holes in terms of climb performance (calculated for 3 engines in case of fatal engine failure). It could be even better performer in high-hot than any modern plane. Unfortunately, it would also be heavier and far less economic design that 359. So, only few mission profiles would justify it, and as such, it would make no economical sense.

Cheers,
Adam
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:12 am

gloom wrote:
tomcat wrote:
A 275t A339 would logically be more competitive than this A343NEO.


Not quite.

A339 would be directly matched against 359. And not bring anything new but a few problems to solve.

A349 (let's call it that way) would have a couple of things not provided by A359. It would benefit from 4 holes in terms of climb performance (calculated for 3 engines in case of fatal engine failure). It could be even better performer in high-hot than any modern plane. Unfortunately, it would also be heavier and far less economic design that 359. So, only few mission profiles would justify it, and as such, it would make no economical sense.

Cheers,
Adam


I can agree with that but you are not demonstrating that this A349 would be more competitive than the A339. Having only 2 engines has proved to be overwhelmingly more valuable than 4 engines.
 
gloom
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:31 am

tomcat wrote:
I can agree with that but you are not demonstrating that this A349 would be more competitive than the A339. Having only 2 engines has proved to be overwhelmingly more valuable than 4 engines.


As mentioned before - there is a two-holer in 275t weight class. As such, A339 uprated to 275t (considering wingbox of 343 could be adopted) would make absolutely no sense.

Cheers,
Adam
 
LH707330
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:54 am

I think an issue with the 275t A339 would be strengthening the wings for that fuselage weight increase. The counterweights on the 349 are not just there to save wing weight due to the bending moment, but to give you all that extra weight for the same structure.

The 332 fin after ln 555 is basically the same as the 345/346 fin, and the 345 is only a few frames longer than the 343/333, plus the outboards are pretty far out there. I don't think you'd need a bigger fin than that if you pushed the 339 engines to 75k.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5092
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:38 pm

LH707330 wrote:
The outer engines on the 343 give the wing more bending relief than on the 333, which enables the higher MTOW. When you have those counterweights out there, you can fill the center wing tank and fuselage with more weight before you hit wing bending limitations. Pretty clever design, pity the CFM56-5C was cobbled together and didn't get enough upgrades to stay competitive vs the 777 engines.

the CFM was not built for an airframe like that. The PW 2040 or the Rolls 535 might have been a far better choice right off the Bat. That airplane gave rise to the big fan's we see today. However? None of them were originally designed for an airbus application, Airbus needs an engine designed for their application to maximise whatever they intend to use for a wing platform. Just like Boeing did with the 777 and the 787, or even the 767.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:00 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
The outer engines on the 343 give the wing more bending relief than on the 333, which enables the higher MTOW. When you have those counterweights out there, you can fill the center wing tank and fuselage with more weight before you hit wing bending limitations. Pretty clever design, pity the CFM56-5C was cobbled together and didn't get enough upgrades to stay competitive vs the 777 engines.

the CFM was not built for an airframe like that. The PW 2040 or the Rolls 535 might have been a far better choice right off the Bat. That airplane gave rise to the big fan's we see today. However? None of them were originally designed for an airbus application, Airbus needs an engine designed for their application to maximise whatever they intend to use for a wing platform. Just like Boeing did with the 777 and the 787, or even the 767.

Airbus did consider the PW2040 and RB211, but both of those were too heavy, and had a little bit more thrust than they wanted, which would have pushed up fuel burn.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Thu Dec 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Another limitation of a hypothetical 275t A339 is it's size. It is a smaller aircraft than the A359, for example, so I imagine you will end up with a lot of that 275t MTOW going unused because you will run out of space for any more payload before hitting the limits (if MZFW is increased in a similar way). If MZFW isn't increased, you'll have far too much weight available for fuel and might be fuel volume limited.

The only way I think it would make sense is if an LCC wanted to stuff 460 pax in it and fly half way across the planet or if an airline carries very dense cargo.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1784
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:05 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
The 251T A339 however, has closed the gap almost completely, offering 7200nm range with a full pax load.

That's greater than the MD11, equal to a 744, and only slightly behind where the A343 and early 772ERs were.

Not bad for an airframe that originally started out with barely the range of a 752.


Wow, that is very interesting. Great reference points.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:38 am

LongHaulFTW wrote:
So let me get this straight, the A330-300 cannot carry the same passenger payload AND fuel capacity at the same time as the A340-300 because it has a lower MTOW? So this would mean that the A330-300 would have to trade passenger capacity for fuel to achieve a similar range as the A340-300?


Those trade offs are more apparent in the payload range curves for each aircraft. Google Airbus (or Boeing) Airport Planning Guide.

Here is the link to the Airbus set - https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

For the A330 look for section 3 for the payload range charts at standard conditions. The charts must be adjusted for altitude and temperature, colder air gives more lift, hot air less lift. Each engine choice will have a different chart.

Most payload range curves are flat at the top - Maximum structural payload, the first sloped section is where fuel replaces payload, then a steeper section of the same, and lastly the ranges where the fuel hits its maximum. The difference between the first and 2nd is the penalty for carrying a bunch of fuel weight 7,000 nm.


For your question, find the A330-300 chart for its engines and find the A340-300 chart with its engines. For the A330-300 with GE (fig 3-2-1 on page 257 of the doc) at 5,500 nm it can carry 78K pounds, the curves split there, the blue one is fuel limited line without the center fuel tank, the red is the fuel limited with the center fuel tank.
The A330-300 can do 8,500 nm with a 10K payload, but there would be better choices as there is so little payload left.

Do the same with the A340-300 and do an A350 also. The curves really tell the performance of the plane and they can vary by a surprisingly amount. Compare a -300 to a -900, the neo engines flattened the curves a healthy bit as the new engines are more efficient.
 
LurveBus
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:57 am

gloom wrote:
tomcat wrote:
A 275t A339 would logically be more competitive than this A343NEO.


Not quite.

A339 would be directly matched against 359. And not bring anything new but a few problems to solve.

A349 (let's call it that way) would have a couple of things not provided by A359. It would benefit from 4 holes in terms of climb performance (calculated for 3 engines in case of fatal engine failure). It could be even better performer in high-hot than any modern plane. Unfortunately, it would also be heavier and far less economic design that 359. So, only few mission profiles would justify it, and as such, it would make no economical sense.

Cheers,
Adam


Airlines based in hot and high airports like MEX and JNB could take advantage of the performance. And airlines flying South America-Australasia would benefit from ETOPs. If Airbus worked on an A349 instead of an A338, it would probably sell more and become a cool niche aircraft. Four or five airlines could split a hundred frames between them. Would be great to break the impending monotony of twins that’s coming as 747s and A380s start to disappear.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:03 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
LongHaulFTW wrote:
So let me get this straight, the A330-300 cannot carry the same passenger payload AND fuel capacity at the same time as the A340-300 because it has a lower MTOW? So this would mean that the A330-300 would have to trade passenger capacity for fuel to achieve a similar range as the A340-300?


Those trade offs are more apparent in the payload range curves for each aircraft. Google Airbus (or Boeing) Airport Planning Guide.

Here is the link to the Airbus set - https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

For the A330 look for section 3 for the payload range charts at standard conditions. The charts must be adjusted for altitude and temperature, colder air gives more lift, hot air less lift. Each engine choice will have a different chart.

Most payload range curves are flat at the top - Maximum structural payload, the first sloped section is where fuel replaces payload, then a steeper section of the same, and lastly the ranges where the fuel hits its maximum. The difference between the first and 2nd is the penalty for carrying a bunch of fuel weight 7,000 nm.


For your question, find the A330-300 chart for its engines and find the A340-300 chart with its engines. For the A330-300 with GE (fig 3-2-1 on page 257 of the doc) at 5,500 nm it can carry 78K pounds, the curves split there, the blue one is fuel limited line without the center fuel tank, the red is the fuel limited with the center fuel tank.
The A330-300 can do 8,500 nm with a 10K payload, but there would be better choices as there is so little payload left.

Do the same with the A340-300 and do an A350 also. The curves really tell the performance of the plane and they can vary by a surprisingly amount. Compare a -300 to a -900, the neo engines flattened the curves a healthy bit as the new engines are more efficient.


@JayinKitsap, this is a great post
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1773
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:41 am

LurveBus wrote:
gloom wrote:
tomcat wrote:
A 275t A339 would logically be more competitive than this A343NEO.


Not quite.

A339 would be directly matched against 359. And not bring anything new but a few problems to solve.

A349 (let's call it that way) would have a couple of things not provided by A359. It would benefit from 4 holes in terms of climb performance (calculated for 3 engines in case of fatal engine failure). It could be even better performer in high-hot than any modern plane. Unfortunately, it would also be heavier and far less economic design that 359. So, only few mission profiles would justify it, and as such, it would make no economical sense.

Cheers,
Adam


Airlines based in hot and high airports like MEX and JNB could take advantage of the performance. And airlines flying South America-Australasia would benefit from ETOPs. If Airbus worked on an A349 instead of an A338, it would probably sell more and become a cool niche aircraft. Four or five airlines could split a hundred frames between them. Would be great to break the impending monotony of twins that’s coming as 747s and A380s start to disappear.

Is the A343 capable of flying MEX-JNB or does this require an A346?
 
T54A
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:37 am

blacksoviet wrote:
LurveBus wrote:
gloom wrote:

Not quite.

A339 would be directly matched against 359. And not bring anything new but a few problems to solve.

A349 (let's call it that way) would have a couple of things not provided by A359. It would benefit from 4 holes in terms of climb performance (calculated for 3 engines in case of fatal engine failure). It could be even better performer in high-hot than any modern plane. Unfortunately, it would also be heavier and far less economic design that 359. So, only few mission profiles would justify it, and as such, it would make no economical sense.

Cheers,
Adam


Airlines based in hot and high airports like MEX and JNB could take advantage of the performance. And airlines flying South America-Australasia would benefit from ETOPs. If Airbus worked on an A349 instead of an A338, it would probably sell more and become a cool niche aircraft. Four or five airlines could split a hundred frames between them. Would be great to break the impending monotony of twins that’s coming as 747s and A380s start to disappear.

Is the A343 capable of flying MEX-JNB or does this require an A346?


No that would be a bit far for the A343. A 7869nm sector from a 7500ft departure airfield altitude would be a big ask for any aircraft. In fact I don’t think there’s a single airliner out there that could do that sector with a useful payload.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3 A359
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:18 am

In the land of fantasy planes the A342 with PW1100g would be a monster range machine (too much maybe). If one were to upgrade as such it would likely be better to use 300 and 500 lengths with original wings. Such a machines fuel burn figures would have been at home with the 787/A330NEO/A350. Some would dismiss it because its a quad....

Fred
Image
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1773
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Thu Mar 26, 2020 7:58 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
In the land of fantasy planes the A342 with PW1100g would be a monster range machine (too much maybe). If one were to upgrade as such it would likely be better to use 300 and 500 lengths with original wings. Such a machines fuel burn figures would have been at home with the 787/A330NEO/A350. Some would dismiss it because its a quad....

Fred

That is a great idea. Perhaps someone should pay for the certification for existing A342s and A343s to be re-engined. Not only would the planes have excellent range but it would be exempt from ETOPS restrictions over the southern oceans.

I think it is possible. People have installed Rolls Royce engines on 727-100s (#1 and #3 only). Also, CFM56s have been installed on KC-135s and DC-8s.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Fri Mar 27, 2020 1:11 am

flipdewaf wrote:
In the land of fantasy planes the A342 with PW1100g would be a monster range machine (too much maybe). If one were to upgrade as such it would likely be better to use 300 and 500 lengths with original wings. Such a machines fuel burn figures would have been at home with the 787/A330NEO/A350. Some would dismiss it because its a quad....

Fred

How do you think that would do in terms of fuel burn numbers? I speculated a bit in post #12 about it, I'm curious to hear your $.02 on it.
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:14 am

blacksoviet wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
In the land of fantasy planes the A342 with PW1100g would be a monster range machine (too much maybe).

That is a great idea. Perhaps someone should pay for the certification for existing A342s and A343s to be re-engined. Not only would the planes have excellent range but it would be exempt from ETOPS restrictions over the southern oceans.

I think it is possible.


I think accountants will keep that in the realm of fantasy. Just about anything's possible if you throw enough money at it, but can you make a valid business case for good ROI on the development cost, plus covering the extra maintenance expense, to cover, what, maybe 10 viable routes, tops?



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 ARJ AT6/7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 741/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR1/2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L4T M11/80/87/90 SF3 SU9 TU3/TU5 YK2
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:05 am

blacksoviet wrote:
That is a great idea. Perhaps someone should pay for the certification for existing A342s and A343s to be re-engined. Not only would the planes have excellent range but it would be exempt from ETOPS restrictions over the southern oceans.



Nope. Remaining operators of Quad aircraft now go by EDTO standards, which are the same as for ETOPS where MX, DX & Flight Operations are concerned. As well, the latest ETOPS max is 370min, depending on the City PAir, Operator History and Aircraft type. However, 330 is the current max ETOPS in service -AKL - EZE-, so even this is likely surplus to our needs.

In any case, there is not a remaining ETOPS benefit to Quads. Only higher takeoff performance and possibility of payload range benefit. Though these must offset engine MX & Fuel costs to be viable as well.

dennypayne wrote:

I think accountants will keep that in the realm of fantasy. Just about anything's possible if you throw enough money at it, but can you make a valid business case for good ROI on the development cost, plus covering the extra maintenance expense, to cover, what, maybe 10 viable routes, tops?


Yep. And with the still unused ETOPS 370 & proposed 420 limitation increases, it gets all the more so.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1773
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:21 am

Why didn’t South African order the A340-500? This aircraft would have been perfect for their hot hub airport. It is the only version of the A340 that they never operated.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15282
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:32 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Nope. Remaining operators of Quad aircraft now go by EDTO standards, which are the same as for ETOPS where MX, DX & Flight Operations are concerned.


That is not correct, EDTO on a quad applies when flying more than 3 hours from a suitable airport, where it is one hour for a twin,.

blacksoviet wrote:
Why didn’t South African order the A340-500? This aircraft would have been perfect for their hot hub airport. It is the only version of the A340 that they never operated.


The 346 adequately covered all of their route network with spare capacity, they didn't the additional range of the 345. I have taken off out of JNB with a full load on the 346 with a typhoon approaching HKG so we held BKK as an alternate.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:07 am

zeke wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Nope. Remaining operators of Quad aircraft now go by EDTO standards, which are the same as for ETOPS where MX, DX & Flight Operations are concerned.


That is not correct, EDTO on a quad applies when flying more than 3 hours from a suitable airport, where it is one hour for a twin,.



Difference without distinction. Enough (as in virtually all) of the requirements are the same. His point was that there are still routes that require the use of a quad for ETOPS reasons. There are not. Even runs like EZE - AKL are now done with twins. Between EDTO and the fact that there is now available ETOPS 340 -and soon 420- there is nowhere any airline flies that requires a quad over a qualified twin.

A four engined aircraft will never be purchased for ETOPS related reasons again.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1773
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:59 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
zeke wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Nope. Remaining operators of Quad aircraft now go by EDTO standards, which are the same as for ETOPS where MX, DX & Flight Operations are concerned.


That is not correct, EDTO on a quad applies when flying more than 3 hours from a suitable airport, where it is one hour for a twin,.




A four engined aircraft will never be purchased for ETOPS related reasons again.

It will if Qantas or Latam decide to launch PER-SCL. That is outside the range of ETOPS-420 because it requires flying over the middle of Antarctica. I don’t think their are any runways in Antarctica that are capable of handling widebodies. The route requires a 747-400ER or an A345. The A380 is too big.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: A330-300 vs. A340-300 range

Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:03 am

blacksoviet wrote:
It will if Qantas or Latam decide to launch PER-SCL. That is outside the range of ETOPS-420 because it requires flying over the middle of Antarctica. I don’t think their are any runways in Antarctica that are capable of handling widebodies. The route requires a 747-400ER or an A345. The A380 is too big.


No. Even less likelihood such a route would be launched with a quad than a twin.

For a start, your routing is great circle. This saves on mileage, but there is more to route planning than that. Aircraft endurance is actually measured in time, not distance -hence the concept of ETOPS being defined that way and not in miles. Very likely, route planning will make you something like this. This link utilizes very conservative figure both for speed and distance, as a literal stop is not required at WLG, rather just to stay within ETOPS range.

The ETOPS portion of the flight is not only far inside of the 420 in-work limit, it is inside of the 340 limit, and on most days would comply with the 307 standards. You can easily use a 788, 789, A359, 778, or 779 for this.

The bigger problem would be finding a market to fill seats on PER-SCL. I would imagine that filling a 788 would be a challenge here, leave alone an A350 or 777. A 747 or 345 would be right out, given the operational costs. They are not large towns and there are no matching alliance hubs at either end.

I do agree that no one is enthusiastic about overflying Antarctica, even without regard to ETOPS issues.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, Haemoglobin and 13 guests

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