Well, something has to replace the DC8 freighters that are rapidly dwindling in serviceable numbers. Why not convert the 340-500's ?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
the fate of the A340-500
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post............ I worried, thought that with so many abandoning their 747-400s, joining many 747-300s on the market - wouldn't heavier aircraft that are perhaps better suited for tanker operations, be already available? ................
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostWell, something has to replace the DC8 freighters that are rapidly dwindling in serviceable numbers. Why not convert the 340-500's ?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Highkeas View PostOne major issue with air-to-air refueling is ensuring there is acceptable tubulance in the zone where the receiving aircraft is positioned. Very large aircraft, in geneal, have severe wakes.
All of which have similar or greater size and MTOW.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HalcyonDays View PostWhat the A340 has very much against it in today's world is four engines. The old Dc-8s are already being replaced by a mixture of the A300/A310/757/767/777, with the MD-11 too to some extent.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostBut those four engines take it a lot further with a larger payload than the A300. The A300 has a listed range of 4,000nm whereas the A340-500 has a listed range of almost 9,000nm. For payload figures I can only compare passenger numbers as there aren't any 340-500 freighters around. The A300 carries 266 pax against the A340-500's approx 350 pax. Out of the A300/A310/757/767/777 selection only the B777-ER is an equal as far as range and payload are concerned and for freighter use they would have to be purchased new.
Comment
Comment