I was wondering, is the A340-200/300 series (with it's 'hair-dryer') engines more fuel efficent that the A340 500/600? The reason I was wondering, is that alot of airlines still operate their A340-200/300s while the A345/6s are not ordered as much. Were the A345/6s meant to replace the A342/3s? I know that the MTOWs and the capacities are different - but I have even heard members here state that the A342/3s are a better product. I know that the A345/6s have been touted as bad with fuel economics when compared to the 777 family - but when compared to its pre-decessors, is it a better aircraft? In other words, is it an improovement? Or are there such changes (such as the larger cabins, the increased MTOWs, and such) that make it not really a replacement - but a different class of aircraft?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A340-200/300 vs A340-500/600 - more fuel efficent?
Collapse
X
-
The A340-500/600s are a whole different animal than the A340-200/300s. As far as fuel efficiency goes, the newer planes do burn more fuel, but they obviously offer larger pax capacity, larger capacity, and more range. Not to mention, everytime a new plane type is being developed, even if it's in the same plane family, improving fuel efficiency is always the #1 issue .
The newer A340s were also developed for different missions than the A340-200/300. The A345 was developed as an ultra-longhaul plane, for routes like SQ's SIN-EWR service, but those markets are very limited to begin with, and with current fuel levels, it is hard to get sufficient yields, witnessed by SQ and TG bleeding money on their ULHs and SQ is converting their A345s to biz-only flights, hoping that will provide the needed yields. All that is limiting demand, and when you have a competitor like the 77L that offers superior performances, especially as far as cargo goes, it's no wonder orders hav dryed up, even if the 77L isn't really used for ULH operations these days either.
The A346 was developed for multiple roles, one being a high-capacity longhaul plane suited for carriers that want a plane smaller than their A380s on order and larger than their A330/340 fleet, plus also as a 742/743 replacement, though the latter didn't really turn out to be a market, save for maybe IB. The problem with the A346 is that while it does have improved economics over older A340 models, it has significantly worse operating economics than the 77W, which while arriving years after the A346, had gained significantly more orders than A346, just like in the A345/77L scenario, mostly due to its superior cargo capacity
-
Originally posted by DAL767-400ERThe A340-500/600s are a whole different animal than the A340-200/300s. As far as fuel efficiency goes, the newer planes do burn more fuel, but they obviously offer larger pax capacity, larger capacity, and more range. Not to mention, everytime a new plane type is being developed, even if it's in the same plane family, improving fuel efficiency is always the #1 issue .
The newer A340s were also developed for different missions than the A340-200/300. The A345 was developed as an ultra-longhaul plane, for routes like SQ's SIN-EWR service, but those markets are very limited to begin with, and with current fuel levels, it is hard to get sufficient yields, witnessed by SQ and TG bleeding money on their ULHs and SQ is converting their A345s to biz-only flights, hoping that will provide the needed yields. All that is limiting demand, and when you have a competitor like the 77L that offers superior performances, especially as far as cargo goes, it's no wonder orders hav dryed up, even if the 77L isn't really used for ULH operations these days either.
The A346 was developed for multiple roles, one being a high-capacity longhaul plane suited for carriers that want a plane smaller than their A380s on order and larger than their A330/340 fleet, plus also as a 742/743 replacement, though the latter didn't really turn out to be a market, save for maybe IB. The problem with the A346 is that while it does have improved economics over older A340 models, it has significantly worse operating economics than the 77W, which while arriving years after the A346, had gained significantly more orders than A346, just like in the A345/77L scenario, mostly due to its superior cargo capacity
But the A330, is the best aircraft by far in the Airbus fleet, out does that piece of S*** the americans call a 767 haha Im sorry, i really dont like Boeing planes...
Comment
-
The A340-200 is still being used by airliners today because it has a bit longer range than the A340-600, only difference is that the A340-600 can carry more passengers. The A340-200 also has a lower fuel capacity than the A340-600 while having a longer range, lowering costs on fuel. The numbers speaks for themselves, this directly from Airbus's website:
Range (w/max. passengers) 14,800 km. 13,350 (13,700) km. 16,100 (16,700) km. 14,360 (14,600) km.
Maximum fuel capacity 155,040 Litres 140,640 (147,850) Litres 214,810 (222,000) Litres 195,881 (204,500) Litres
The A345/6 were made for a whole different role for long range and capacity, also to challenge Boeing's 777s and 747s. The problem is that the 777s offers long range with higher fuel efficency, especially with the 777LRs. We see now that orders for A345/6 are not to standards and that orders for 772/3/LRs are going up.
I do have to agree with the A330 being the best aircraft that Airbus has right now, with total aircrafts produced passing 600. With even US carriers ordering the aircraft, US Airways and Northwest, its impressive. It is better than 767s, don't see it better than 787 though.what ever happens......happens
Comment
-
Originally posted by AerLingusA330But the A330, is the best aircraft by far in the Airbus fleet, out does that piece of S*** the americans call a 767 haha Im sorry, i really dont like Boeing planes...
The 767 was almost 10 years old when the A-330 entered service.Don
Standard practice for managers around the world:
Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!
Comment
-
Originally posted by AerLingusA330Yea but you have to admit that the A345 is one hell of stunning lookin aircraft, along with the A346
But the A330, is the best aircraft by far in the Airbus fleet, out does that piece of S*** the americans call a 767 haha Im sorry, i really dont like Boeing planes...
Sorry, but if the 767 was such a piece of shit it wouldn't have been in production since the 1980's, with airlines still ordering them.
Isn't your statement like saying "Syphillis is the best STD!"?
I kid.
Comment
-
Originally posted by VerbalDid some Boeing guy steal your girlfriend?
Comment
-
Originally posted by AerLingusA330Yea but you have to admit that the A345 is one hell of stunning lookin aircraft, along with the A346
But the A330, is the best aircraft by far in the Airbus fleet, out does that piece of S*** the americans call a 767 haha Im sorry, i really dont like Boeing planes...
In Answer to the question of this thread. I personally would think that the A340-500/600 would have more fuel efficent because you have more air intake and outtake than with the bullet A340-200/300 engines.
Comment
Comment