Why is the A300 such a good freighter ?
 

Just wondering why it is used so much.?

I have a guess, not more:
It's a widebody, it has a lot of power, so it's a good hauler for heavy loads, it is and was available in sufficient numbers at affordable prices.

As we see a lot of the A300 used as freighters a big number are old first generation A300 aircraft, still with the three-men-flightdeck. These aircraft became available to the freighter market well before affordable B767 were available. As most freighter aircraft used to be former pax aircraft this may also play a role in the success of the A300 as a freighter.


From what I see, it's a good aircreft for hauling freight on short to medium long sectors offereing sufficient load capability paired with good performance and the aircraft were available for freighter modification as the first widebody aircraft not meant to be a long haule aircraft.


All above is just my personal guess and I must say I have never flown one of the A300. :rolleyes:

The A300B4 will carry 45t without bulking out for 7 hours.Flew it for 5 years,loved it.:}

Also flew it for 5 years, and loved it, loved it, loved it. A delight to hand fly, with "proper" controls, and excellent performance, and of course the third man in the cockpit, who, if used properly, is such an attribute to the red-eye operations.
Did a flapless into NEMA a couple of years ago, with a touchdown speed of 168kts as I recall, and was amazed by the extra retardation of the reverse thrust at the increased speed. (OK, so we expected it, but who gets to experience it for real that often!). Result was a total anticlimax, we didnt even roll to the end, and didnt even have hot brakes for the Fire Service to monitor, all this at a couple of tons below MLW, and NEMA is not the longest of runways. Stated LD requirements are impressively short.
Old enough to be quirky, (some say the electrics are haunted), can do superb autolands, looks right, and IMHO, a venerable gentlemans aeronautical carriage.

alatnariver has it about right, it's all down to the economics. Reasonable lease/purchase rates, not bad fuel efficiency, especially when compared with some other freighters still hauling, and the B4 can lift 45t on short (1.5-2 hour) sectors. The -600, although newer with a higher investment price give a higher payload over longer range and therefore an reasonable TPK cost.

RT

A300b4
 

I spend over a decade on this lovely machine. It never let me down and I loved every single hour.

A three man cockpit is safer we all know that but besides all that has been said earlier - it can take a rocket and still flies...:D

Best Airbus ever build. Someone in here once said,

'It looked as if Airbus had it right with the A300B until they started to build the new ones' He's so right!

The majority of A300B4 frieght aircraft in recent or current use are either BAe or DASA conversions from pax aircraft. I believe the first conversion was at ASL Lemverder and possibly a few at Sogerma.
The BAe Filton conversion was an FSI STC, the method of floor strenthening was reinforcing the original floor beams, the DASA conversion at Dresden removed the floor beams and replaced with brand new A300-600 units.
The most obvious differences were one used an electric motor to open the main deck door and the other used the hydraulics, however from an engineering point of view, the more expensive DASA conversion was by far the best, the FSI conversion required further modifications to prevent structure cracking and the flooring gave problems in service.
The weakness on the aircraft was the main frame 40 and 47 to wing attachments, with cracking in the fastener holes, this was a very expensive fix.
The in service problems came from replacing the steel brake units for the much lighter carbon brakes, this caused over heating of the skydrol hydraulic brake fluid causing the fluid to become a very acidic jelly, in turn causing internal corrosion problems within the hydraulic components.
Other than that the aircraft was a very reliable freighter if operated and maintained with abit of TLC.
Best regards,
om15

A300-600
 

Its a perfetct size freighter with the excact economical range.
If you want to buy one they are not available. Neither is the B767 freighter. There is more demand for that size aircraft than the B747.
The B747-400 starts being economical after 6 hours. Anything less is a loss of revenue.

Ive never flown thar machine. However I know that lots of companies are looking for them. UPS had Airbus to open the production line up after it was shut down and manufacture some more for them. My friends who fly it absolutely love it. Also the B4 is favorable since the other once are not available. Now the A330F will be he replacement by Airbus.

Also keep in mind that Airbus has a absolute wonderful support for their customers and operators.

Original question:

Because its a perfect DC8 replacement?

CR2, at risk of upssetting the mod. I've gotta disagree slightly with your statement.

I'd say the A300 is better at short haul. While the Greasy 8 is still a great hauler, it hates short sectors. Put them on 1-1.5 hour sectors & it will break after 2 or 3. On the other hand, load it to the gunwales and send it on 5-6 hour sectors and it becomes a clockwork mouse, just keeps on rolling.

The 'bus, on the other hand, relishes several short sectors per night, even the -600.

On that basis I'd say the DC8 & A300 are complimentary with overlaps. Anyway, a bit like the DC3, with what do you replace a DC8 - another DC8.

RT

The other reason not mentioned so far on this thread is the fuselage diameter is slightly bigger [1.5 inches? ] which enables it to carry standard LD ? containers , whilst the 767 has its own unique containers, so interlining cargo with other widebody types is easier.

RampTramp, I was posing a question, not making a statement :)

CR2, & I hope i answered it :cool:

RT

Anyplane that can taeoff at 360,000 lbs. with 0 flap/8 slat ain't bad in my book. Built on the KISS principle makes it an excellent aircraft. With 6000, hours under my belt, it never let me down.

Agree. Just the manuals could merge into something more user-friendly...
 

:ok: It seems to me that the great redundancy of the flight deck is another contributing factor granting them the preference of so many full-freighter companies . It is so true that quite a few of the new cargo ops in Asia have recently choosen the A300-600F, even though the assembly line delivered the last one in july (# 821, if I received the right info). We converted our 1st early this year and are about to convert the other as of february-08. The Dresden EFW "factory" never stops (mainly for FedEx) and did a very nice job on our acft (A300-600R into A300-600RF; when the germans return the acft, it looks like brand-new)...:*Just think the manuals could evolve into something more user-friendly, from the classic "telephone guide" size & shape (Lufthansa already does this on their own)...having instructed and checked on Boeings for quite some time, I moved back to the A310/A300-600 family 1.5 yr ago. Great acft, extremely comfortable, mainly for a daily basis (we operate the A300-600RF). But the manuals & documentation are definitely not very good, and the interaction ECAM x QRH ("PROC") might get messy and confusing, sometimes (I instruct both on the sim and on the acft). I see it as an acft where one'd better know very well the checklists and understand the way systems work with much more details than in a Boeing. However, as was very well outlined, it will seldom let you down, provided good maintenance exists.

Nice flights to everyone & Happy Hollidays!!! ;)