Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the fate of the A340-500

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Well, something has to replace the DC8 freighters that are rapidly dwindling in serviceable numbers. Why not convert the 340-500's ?
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #17
      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? ................
      One 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.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
        Well, something has to replace the DC8 freighters that are rapidly dwindling in serviceable numbers. Why not convert the 340-500's ?
        What 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.

        Comment


        • #19
          Is there a shortage in A340 parts? Any likelyhood they get broken up?
          "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
            One 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.
            And yet the 747 has been converted into a tanker (KC-25) , the tristar and the DC-10 (KC-10) have both been converted as have the A330.

            All of which have similar or greater size and MTOW.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
              What 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.
              But 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.
              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                But 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.
                Range is useful, but it is not the primary requirement, which is operating economics. Four engines are simply more expensive, and there are also no ETOPS requirements for freight flights.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Is Sonair taking two?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X