LongHaulFTW
Topic Author
Posts: 5
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: 214
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: 173
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: 11369
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
This Singature is a safe space......
 
MON
Posts: 106
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: 12666
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: 5
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: 11369
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
This Singature is a safe space......
 
LongHaulFTW
Topic Author
Posts: 5
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: 2248
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: 473
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: 2248
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: 473
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: 67
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 CRJ2 E145 E17S E190 MD88 MD90
AA AC B6 CA CX CZ DL EK FM HU JL KA LH LX MU NH TK UA US
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11369
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
This Singature is a safe space......

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blink182 and 16 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