Well, the A330/A340 were developed as the one programme - they are essentially 2 and 4 engined derivatives of the same aircraft.

I do believe that ETOPS restrictions were a lot tighter when the A340 was being developed, but with these being relaxed, there are now many more routes open to 2 holers that only 3 and 4 holers could previously operate.

There is also the 'safety net' of having more engines to rely on should things go wrong, and less problems due to assymmetrical thrust. This has to be balanced by increased maintenance costs with having more engines. Indeed, 2 engine ETOPS aircraft have greater engine reliability records than 4 engine aircraft.

Still, many airlines, like Virgin, Cathay, and Lufthansa are happily flying the A340, and the -500 and -600 series are a definite improvement over the hairdryer powered -200s and -300s.

I don't think Airbus have suffered too much in sales, as the A340 has been a good seller, and the A330 a very good seller.

Sure - but AFAICT on most routes the A340 is flying there is usually some other airline using 767s to fly the same route. I always thought that the 767 was slightly older in conception - so surely any earlier ETOPS restrictions would have come into play there also.

and they are very good looking planes besides :) But i just wondered - it seemed like Airbus was bucking the trend a little in putting them out.

One reason for using 4 engines for long haul is that the wing structure can actually be lighter as the downward bending weight of the outboard engines can help to counteract the weight of fuel in the centre tanks.

So when the A330 and A340 were designed together the A340 was a long range aircraft and the A330 was a medium range aircraft. The 340 carried much more fuel than the 330 so the wing bending relief of the outboard engines offset the weight of the extra fuel.

The early 330s and 340s had identical wings, just on the 330 there were no engines mounted on the outboard attachment points. Proved very useful for the A330 tanker cos this is where they mounted the refueling pods - the wing structure could take them without any redesign.

Since the early days differences between the 330 and ater 340 models has increased dramatically.

Okay, but what is in it for the airline in terms of selling points ?
Why would they prefer the A340 to the 777 (genuine and not rhetorical question).

To put it another way. Of the various large carrier airlines in the US flying both trans-atlantic and trans-pacific, the majority of every fleet seems to comprise of twins with a scattering of 747s.

What was Airbuses thinking behind bringing out a 4 engined jet in this market? I'm not claiming there isn't any, i'm just wondering what it was.

"What was Airbuses thinking behind bringing out a 4 engined jet in this market?"

Basically, as I said, they could produce a new medium range airliner, the A330, and a long range airliner, the A340, simultaneously and with about 90% commonality between the two - hence greatly reducing the development costs of both types.

"Okay, but what is in it for the airline in terms of selling points ?"

What about Virgin's "4 engines for long haul" slogan. Don't know if it had much impact on their pax but they thought it was a selling point.

Groundloop

Hope this doesn't sound picky but I thought that the "wing bending" that needed relief was generated by the lift forces on the wing. In flight this creates an upward stress at the wing/fuselage join which can be "relieved" by filling the wing with fuel. That either one or two engines are also fitted there is added relief not an "offset"

Fly long haul over the north pole and suddenly 4 engines makes A LOT of sense!

Why do A340's have 4 engines? They couldn't stick 6 on the wings! :p

ETOPS,

True the wing bending is caused by aerodynamic forces but the A340 wing bends up more than the 330 because it generates more lift because the 340 is a heavier aircraft because of its higher fuel load.

Therefore as the outer wings bend up more, hanging engines off them bends 'em back down again.

Just to be picky, really picky.. the wing bending moment is not just caused by lift.. its caused by the fuselage being pulled down by gravity whilst the wing is maintained by a pretty uniformly distributed lift force.

If you think of the wing with no engines as a simple cantilever, like a pencil held between two fingers it moves up and down quite a lot as you apply load to one end....then try to stop it moving and you soon see how it snaps.

However add a weight at the mid point and the movement is reduced and the force needed to restrain it is reduced, hence the tendency to snap is also reduced...add another weight further out and its going to move even less.....and less force is needed to restrain it is reduced and so even likely to snap. So for an equal strucutral strength you can reduce the dead weight of structure by hanging engines off it..

That's the thought behind the use of engines spread across the wing and also the thought behind having fule in the wings spread across the majority of the span.

My guess for the A340/A330 divergence is that for an equal strucutral weight the A340 can carry a higher fuel load.. hence longer range. As the A330 is not destined for such long sectors the additional fuel is not needed and hence the 4 engines are not helpful.

Detailed examination of the 767/ 777 dry weights versus fully loaded weights may reveal an increased efficency in the A340 solution.

Any dates for the Hawarden visit? My hour building is coming to an end, but I'm sure I can find a few more hours to grab an aircraft and get up there for the day.

A great place to watch the A380 land would be from downwind 1000ft!!

Cheers.

I really am not confident about this so called possibility of an A380 at NR <G>.

But how many Great Circle routes like that are there where ETOPS doesn't apply for whatever reason ? I guess there would be Southern Pacific routes where that might apply also.

It seemed a while ago like twins ruled the world in a way, they seemed to be partially responsible for the death of the trijets. Just wondered why Airbus was able to buck the trend.

Does the A340 have a lower operating cost than the 777 ?

While the wing bending moment relief provided by the outboard engines is real and quantifiable feature, it is only one factor in integrating an airplane. Other Twin vs Quad issues come into play.

The latest versions of the 777-300ER and A340-600 have almost the same payload - range. Comparing airplane weights and fuel volume should give you an idea of the relative efficiency. You can draw your own conclusions.


773ER A346
Operating Empty Weight (tonne) 166.8 181.9
Max Takeoff Weight (tonne) 351.5 380.0
Fuel Volume (USG) 47,890 51,379

Another reason to have four (or more than two-three can help as well) is in high MORA areas. The most extreme case I am aware of is near PURPA where the min alt is FL280, just adjacent to K2. I don't believe that a twin can take a commercial payload and sustain FL280 on one engine. We are lucky to fly the route quite frequently and pass over the mountains just after sunrise on the way to Japan, it is quite odd to watch all these majestic peaks rushing past at 450 kts, five thousand feet away, as an aside, we are all waiting for one of our picky training captains (note the small caps) to require us to come back to 250 knots over PURPA!)

Sorry, PURPA ? I didn't get the 250knots reference either.

Very envious of your opportunity to see what must be one of the best views in the world - and view it whilst sitting in air conditioning and sipping a cup of tea!

--

Sorry about that! PURPA is the waypoint on the Pakistan/Indian/Chinese border and the only way we can do the Japan/Korea northern route out of Dubai. The reference to the 250 knots is due to the general speed restriction below 10,000 feet AGL required by ATC and our company, it was slightly sarcastic as IAS at our typical cruising levels is below that anyway, we just have to put up with a lot of anally retentive nifnaf sometimes, but the price we pay!:)

Mr. Ree

Yes, I'm one of the "old f@rts" that feels "more comfortable with 4 donkeys"

Always happier if there's 4 on the wings, give me a chance of 6 and I'm with you!

Remember the "good old days" of the SVC-10 which could climb out at a pretty normal rate with "2 on the same side out"

Looking forward to the 380 and hoping that my favorite carrier (GF) will buy them (?- your FFP is asking a question here ;) )

Look at the aircraft flying between Hong Kong and Europe, they are all 4 jets. The route takes you over North West China with MORAS above one engine stab height in a twin.

A 747-400s fuel burn is about 10t anhour, the 340-300 about 6t. For long lean routes there is no competition.

Both the A330 and the A343 burn approx 6T/hr.

Obviously losing an engine an engine on the A330 loses you 50% of your thrust, whilst of the A343 you only lose 25%.

At 230T an A330 will drift down to approx FL200.
At 230T a A343 will drift down to approx FL290.
(*At LRC)

The A343 can carry 33T more fuel than the A330 too. (ie: an extra 5hrs)

Figs quoted abv are rules of thumb only; more accurate info is in the FCOM. The MTOW of a heavy weight A330 is 233T, whilst a A343 is 275T.

Lastly, many routes that are now ETOPS, werent ETOPS 15yrs ago. The enroute airports werent suitable, didnt have navaids or were communist. (The polar route is one.....plus USSR, Eastern Europe China, Iran were hardly our friends).

There is less of a requirement for 'light' 4-engined aircraft nowadays...but as Dan explains above, it is still there.

Infinity = Infinity + 1

Therefore, only when we have an infinite number of engines will everyone be happy.

A 380, not a single order
 

by any US company yet.

No money?
:ouch:

No money, no incentive, and a big NO from Mr Bush and Mr Boeing...... Good luck Mr EADS and the A380 (a real Dreamliner)

and no need. US airlines have another route structure than others. I remember a time when most of US airlines got rid of 747 and depended heavily on mid size wide bodies. If they would see a way in making money with the A380, they would have been the first on the list.

In view of Unctuous's interesting thread maybe the A380 should currently be referred to as the 'Nightmareliner' until Mr Mangan's views are substantiated or otherwise.

It makes for scary reading, especially for potential whistleblowers.

No need.

Over Two thirds of all 747s sold were bought for the RANGE, not their size. Well now you don't need to go big to go far. The 747 was not killed by the 380. It was killed by the 767 and the 777.

BTW, if you throw out out all the 747s that were sold for range instead of size, then boeing only sells about 300-400 of them over the last 35 years and the program is a gigantic flop. (just like the 380 would be if Airbus actually had to pay all the developement costs)


Cheers
Wino

So now that you've got an inventory of 40+ 744s that you bought for range you can either trade them for 777s and get the same range with fewer pax or can you trade them for 380s and get the same range with more pax. Wonder what the airlines will do.

So FedEx does not count as a US company, or has something changed recently with their order?

@samusi01
 

O.K., :cool:

let's talk about passenger airlines.

regards

Good to see the usual Boeing/US industry supporters misrepresenting things again as usual.

Big bold banner headline "A380 not a single order", with just a little subtext that this is just referring to US companies, as if they are the only ones of consequence.

Then when the US FedEx order is pointed out the rules of the question are changed.

Face it, everyone involved with the US airline industry. Since the A380 programme was announced ALL the US trunk airlines have either been actually bankrupt or nearly so, while out in the real world things carry on without this. That's why they cannot afford such a new investment. And they probably never will.

The US industry still moans on and on about how 9/11 is the cause of all their ills in order to collect more governmental support while the nations which in comparative terms were far more affected by the tsunami destruction have just got on with it and picked themselves up and carried on.

The collective US airline top managements continue to ego-trip about how large their company is and how large their bonuses are while squandering the now-worthless investments of all the investors in their businesses on maintaining an unsustainable size of their company.

The employees of the US airlines continue to draw the highest paychecks for their jobs in the world while those at least who are customer facing (reservations, checkin, FAs) in return are collectively the most grumpy, customer-hostile group of employees in the worldwide business. Even Aeroflot in comparison are pleasanter and politer (and more competent) nowadays.

All this adds up to why international travellers increasingly keep clear of the US carriers, whose share of international business continues to fall. So no money in the bank, and a declining customer base, means no need for big A380s.

Discuss !

the US majors have decided to move in another direction (lean on the FAA until ETOPS 330 is granted) which is their choice.

The US majors are not the world airline industry (any more) so 380 sales will probably go where they are going now - airlines in Asia where they can pile high and sell cheap. SAA is by their own admission another possibility but that airline is showing ever more signs of political sabotage so doubtful an order will ever come.

The question is: if you believe the 380 is a lemon because all the airlines want is a 773ER/LR then 747 Advanced is an equally stupid idea - right?

ILFC a US lease company has 5 pax A380s and 5 A380F, Fedex 10 A380F, UPS orders are not on the airbus web site yet as being confirmed.

Means only 13% of all ordered so fare are going to north america.

Not only are airlines broke, so are the airports, cannot upgrade to handle the 380.

Only 31 going into europe at the moment.

Very true, last time I looked United had 5 of its 777 online with Varig, and 3 with Air India, small numbers compared to their 519 total airframes.

I watched a documentary about the A380, and how the thing comes together from all over europe. Incredible waste in the way that logistics are handled in order to satisfy politics.

For example, the A380 wing is assembled in north Wales. It's too big to go in a guppy so it has to go by sea. But the airbus plant in Wales is not near the sea, and neither is final assembly in Toulouse.

So, the thing goes on a specialist trailer to the River Dee. Then it is loaded onto a barge, the barge sails off down the Dee and has to wait for precisely the right time window in order that the tide is right to allow the whole assembly to fit under low bridges. Then it reaches the sea and is taken off the barge and loaded onto an ocean going ship. The ship sales to the Bay of Biscay and arrives at a French port. Then off the ship onto another barge for a French waterway and another specialist truck to Toulouse. Some parts barely fit between buildings on roads through French villages and the roads have to be closed at night to get the whole convoy through! All this every single week. What an overhead for each aircraft.

Now, I am fairly sure Boeing don't have such problems because 744s subassemblies are all put together in Seattle. Seems quite sensible. In fact in co-operation for Concorde there were two assembly lines, one in each partner nation to complete aircraft.

Just seems a bit daft to be doing all that just for politics.

Could be something to do with the fact that most of your 'majors' are in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. US carriers lost $9 BILLION dollars last year alone!- US Herald Tribune.

Can't buy too many planes if you've got no cash!

geez give us a break would ya ? ! ?

William is long-since past and, well W, he can't tell AA or any other airline who to buy thier airplanes from. If what you say had even a grain of truth to it, JetBlue and so many other US carriers pilot's would not be Bus drivers. You did get 2 things right Threegreenlights, no money and no incentive - yet.

Truth is, the American market is the one of the most open markets in the world and US companies often buy outside our borders. When the A380's start generating revenue (for it's airline owners, that is) I'm sure some carriers like maybe Northwest or Delta will surely be looking at buying a few of these super-jumbos. Meanwhile, profitable groups like Southwest, have no need for a 1/4-1/2 full goliath.

Anyone heard any news about flight testing ? - after the glorious TA-DA January debut and subsequent 1st flight ~ woke up at 4am to see that one :) ~ , Toulouse seems kind of quiet lately - only thing I've heard about is a PAX EVAC planned sometime next year - otherwise it's all hush-hush.

Hmmm, sounds just like the Boeing 737 assembly line, where the whole fuselage is manufactured in Wichita, Kansas, then shipped in sections on rail cars across the USA to Seattle to be put together. Distance is much further than Broughton to Toulouse.

And a lot of the 777 is manufactured in Japan and shipped right across the Pacific to Everett (plant not on the sea, it's on top of a hill !). Entirely for politics.

I remember reading that the US carriers were taxed about $15 billion last year. It'll be interesting to see how the A350 is gonna sell in the US.

Looks like things are going very well.. thanks Supercarb.

:D

Yes, Airbus do this stuff already with dispersed sub assembly manufacture around Europe, for example A320 sections are flown into final assembly aboard super-guppys. The difference is that the A380 is bigger than a super guppy so they can't use the aerial route.

http://www.portalbrasil.net/images/a300-airbus.jpg

I hope you feel better now that US industry has something else to moan about. Hmm, Katrina, isn't that a European name? :-)