The unloved A340

[Sonorguy]

Originally Posted by Charlie_Fox

I liked the idea of the "downstairs" toilets on the LH A340-(500?) I once flew on from Munich to Beijing. Not much headroom for anyone over 1m65, though.

A few A330s also had this, I remember flying to Mallorca from Manchester on one.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by Sonorguy

A few A330s also had this, I remember flying to Mallorca from Manchester on one.

That's 3 hours or so. You must've eaten something dodgy...

[WHBM]

It was just a manufacturer's desire that gave the A340 (at least, the standard A340-300) and the A330 different model numbers. They were fundamentally the same airframe design, built on the same assembly line, in fact the A330 wing spars long had four engine attachment points until Airbus redid the design after the A340 production was finished. It always seems quite reasonable to produce a couple of variants of a basic design and see which way the market goes. Could have gone either way. Overall they built nearly 2,000 of them, notably good going for a mainstream long haul type.

The A340-500/600, different fuselage length and big fan engines, were way more different, but just presented as variants.

I did several trips London to Sydney on Cathay Pacific. The difference of the quiet cabin going on overnight to Australia compared to the racket of the 777-300ER on the London sector was most noticeable.

[justapax]

Originally Posted by WHBM

It was just a manufacturer's desire that gave the A340 (at least, the standard A340-300) and the A330 different model numbers. They were fundamentally the same airframe design, built on the same assembly line, in fact the A330 wing spars long had four engine attachment points until Airbus redid the design after the A340 production was finished. It always seems quite reasonable to produce a couple of variants of a basic design and see which way the market goes. Could have gone either way. Overall they built nearly 2,000 of them, notably good going for a mainstream long haul type.

The A340-500/600, different fuselage length and big fan engines, were way more different, but just presented as variants.

I did several trips London to Sydney on Cathay Pacific. The difference of the quiet cabin going on overnight to Australia compared to the racket of the 777-300ER on the London sector was most noticeable.

I'd be interested to hear more about the evolution of the A330 wing. The A350 wing is not only aerodynamically efficient, it's a thing of aesthetic beauty. I'm just a pax but I'm interested in supercritical wing design despite the fact that fluid dynamics was my weakest subject at University. I don't necessarily understand the physics behind it all, all I can remember are the gas laws and Bernouilli's equation: but you're never too old to learn.

[Mr Mac]

Justapa.
I can not help there but did build the wing assembly plant in Broughton back in the day. A few pilots I have known and members of ATC have commented on the great wing on A330 /340 when first out due to ability to gain higher altitude that the then common 747 especially over the Atlantic. I agree with you re A350 as well it is a great looking wing.
Cheers
Mr Mac

[Helol]

Here's the A350 wing, taken enroute to JNB. It is a beaut isn't it.

[dixi188]

When the A330s were converted to tankers I think the wing refuelling pods were mounted where the outboard engines would be on an A340 as this area was beefed up at build.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by dixi188

When the A330s were converted to tankers I think the wing refuelling pods were mounted where the outboard engines would be on an A340 as this area was beefed up at build.

That sounds reasonable. The inboard engines are of course located identically on both types.

[treadigraph]

Originally Posted by dixi188

When the A330s were converted to tankers I think the wing refuelling pods were mounted where the outboard engines would be on an A340 as this area was beefed up at build.

That's as I recall it - my employers had some interest in the RAF acquisition (think we bid to design some infrastructure at Brize for one or other of the bids but were unsuccessful - too long ago to recall now) and I took more of an interest in the programme than I might have done otherwise!

[Asturias56]

[QUOTE=Andy_S;12030285]If that's the one, single metric you use to judge an aircrafts safety record then fair enough.[/QUOT

i'd say to pax it's the one that counts.

I quite like the 340. A bit quirter than the 777 inside.

[Saintsman]

The A330 tankers had the wings beefed up where the outer engines would have been. No point in A330 wings being heavier that needed for airline use.

[Saintsman]

Back to accidents. Remember this one?

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a340...fore-delivery/

[Someone Somewhere]

IIRC that's one of the surprisingly many crashes where crew were unable to shut down an engine afterwards, resulting in fire crews drowning it out or waiting for the tanks to run dry..