Little correction: The A310 freighter all have been converted passenger planes. The A310-200C (passenger with freighter capability) was the closest to a dedicated freighter. The A300F4-200 and A300F4-600 were the only dedicated Airbus freighter before the A330-200F. :)
If you're going to take the 4 engine hit, just get a 747 which can carry much more cargo for pretty much the same cost. Plus, it was designed to be a freighter so less modification is needed to convert a passenger version to freight only.
I feel like there was no need for an A340 freighter. Despite it being my favorite widebody of all time, There was already a freighter version of its younger sibling, the A330 and also the A300 and A310. (I also feel like there was no need for the A310 because it is the exact same as the A300 and is smaller, but that's a whole different story)
well, the a310 had its market due to increased range, the a300 could barely fly transatlantic, the a310 was perfect for transatlantic flights on routes not big enough for the 747 or later 777
The 200 and 300 are very power lacking for the weight of the frame. Thus ,it would make sense not to have made a cargo version with those same power plants. The 600 is far more powerful. Still ,if a re engined version had been sought, I think a F model could have worked with it's size.
The A340-300 can carry more payload than the A330-300 and there are A330-300 being converted into freighters so the A340-200/300s seem not too lack as much power as suggested.
@E The 330 ended up with higher powered engines to manage that and at significantly lower weight so that never proved to be an issue. Technology just moved on you didn't need the weight and expense of 4 engines.
@@johniii8147 As I said, the A340-300 can carry more payload than an A330-300 (52 t vs 45,6 t). Furthermore, the A340-300 weights only 1,6 t more compared to the A330-300. Your argument is not correct.
@@LH1836 It is correct. They developed the HGW version of the 330. The fact they discounted the 340 now 10 years ago says all you need to know. Wasn't a market for it.
Can you imagine an A340-300F loaded with freight, using whole lengths of runways, struggling into the sky with its four hair dryers buzzing away? (Airbus should do it! Convert as many as you can. It would be funny to see)
At roughly a 1,000 pounds or 500 kg of fuel burn per hour, that is a big pile of money! Plus the 777 flys a little faster. The 777 also has a higher payload weight and volume capacity. So for freight duty, the 777 just eats the A-340’s lunch. The one place the 340 wins is maximum range, by a noticeable amount.
There is a cargo airline in the UK that has cargo A340's. They bought some of Virgin Atlantic's retired ones and converted them. Seen them flying in and out of Bournemouth on the south coast a few times.
the passenger version already relies on the curvature of the earth to take off. Can't imagine a freighter version. It will start like a swan from a lake
Everyone knows they struggle to take off. Except they don't. This Boeing fanboy BS is a lie. They may not climb very quickly with a full load for a 14hour flight, but they can climb straight to cruising levels without stepping.
I was lucky enough to spot all the 340 preighters for the the very first time at CCU. Namely those were 9H-FOX, 9H-SOL, 9H-SUN. That is something what I'm thankful to Covid 😂 Seen this beautiful bird closely.
European Cargo currently operate 3 or 4 A340's for cargo from China to Bournemouth daily, then on to JFK every other day. 9H-EAL currently parked in Abu Dhabi. 9H-NHS has been on Bournemouth to JFK, with 9H-PPE and 9H-PGS flying from Bournemouth non stop to Fuzhou (FOC) China. As I understand this is correct on 21/08/2021
0:21 cargo variants of several other designs? lol... what other designs except for the only A330-200F? For some weird reasons, airbus has never really get into this market and they are just barely scratching the surface with the A330-200F If you don't think about trying to design one from the get go, you are gonna be playing catch up. Perfect case is the A330-200F. They didn't think about designing a freighter variant in first place and only was an afterthought. Which is why the -200F has that nosegear blister so that it would be level to the ground for freight loading! Airbus really really needs to consider a freighter version right from the get go of designing a new aircraft, NOT later if they ever want to capture a good share from boeing!
the nose hump tho: to be fair if I recall the 777 uses powered loaders to compensate it's own nose-down attitude, so they too would need a redesigned nose landing gear or a similar hump if they didn't just "cheat" it. The A350 in other hand looks level on the ground, guess they thought of that from the start.
Airbus could have manufactured a few a340s as freighters which would be a good experiment, especially as it succeeded with the 747. The a380 may be successful also.
You can’t simply built a few aircraft for experimental cargo use without a big enough backlog of orders. (The A340F would’ve needed several modifications like the A330F). The A380 is a horrible freighter and there are many reasons why we won’t see one. This has been discussed countless times before
I think a P2F conversion would be a good idea for the A340. Although it is not as fuel efficient as the A330 it still is a good aircraft. We see airlines abandoning the A340 due to the COVID crysis. The demand for cargo aircraft is constantly rising though.
I think Airbus should compete directly with Boeing on the airfreight market, NO QUESTION! However the the A340 is not in the game at all with 4 engines. Feasible or not the airlines won't accept the risk of competing against 2 fans. Now having said that a few may try but we all know where that ends up. Hope they make a few bucks for trying though! I'm an efficiency nut who's always wished if it's the same airframe and wing as an A330 why can we just engineer an affordable reduction to 2 more powerful engines and there would be all these ( pretty low time airframes) available for conversion to freighters. But I've been told the engineering costs outweigh the benefits. Maybe I'm "Naïve" but I wish we get more use out of all these airframes we are retiring so early.
There's an ex-Virgin machine operated by European Aviation, flies over us to Bournemouth from time to time. I think it flies medical supplies judging by the NHS logo on the side.
I want Simple Flying to make a video answering why Airbus didn't built an A330-500 or A330-600 like they did with the A340. After all, it would've been similar in size to the 777-300ER; thus it'd make a great competitor... or wouldn't it?
Think they were kind of limited by the engine options. Boeing had secured an exclusive use of the GE90 engines. RR and PW on the other hand is not able to offer any larger engine than what they offered for the B777-200ER. Hence the airbus A330-500/600 will still not be able compete with the B777-300ER.
@@louissikkema5399 A330neo is still smaller than the A340-500/600. The A330-900 can only seat less than 300pax in 2 class. It only gained range from the more efficient engines.
@@chingweixion621 yes and for the bigger capacity there are the a350 variants, as far as I know even the pilot training from a330 to a350 is minimal, so a bigger a330 would only hinder a350 sales
Very interesting, I was wondering why the A340s were not converted or made frieghters. The prieghter thing is different, why not just make a few combi's? A350 frieghter will be interesting but the 777 is way ahead of the game....
Don’t think it would have done very well. Boeing is struggling with sales of their 747-8 freighter. In fact I think the production of these aircrafts is coming to an end even after airlines have recognized the value of freight operations brought by the pandemic. The age of the four engine aircraft has simply come to an end.
It’s only the A340-600 that would make sense to build a freighter of. It has very similar numbers like the 747-400 when it comes to payload, range and fuel burn. It wouldn’t have the benefits of nose cargo door, but it can carry much more “belly cargo” and have the similar size on the main deck as the 747. But the 777F killed it that idea in 2009
Nope. It's no where close to the 747-400F in terms in payload or volume. The nose cargo door isn't much of factor since rarely used and the passenger converted 747 don't have the nose door anyway.
Nope, also the -600 would’ve been one of the worse versions to become a freighter. Also a 4 engine neo is exactly the opposite of what the NEO programs intentions are
@@spongebubatz wasn't saying Airbus should make the freighter version from the -600, even if they did, it could compete with the 747-8F. The reason they didn't make A340neo probably because the A350 has similar capacity and range but with 2 engines instead of fuel guzzling quad.
@@p1xlb522 it couldn’t compete with the 747, even the upcoming 777-300BCF can’t. Also the A346 lacks possibilities for a big enough cargo door The main disadvantage of four engine aircraft are the four engines whose maintenance costs twice as much as the one of a two engine aircraft
The problem with the A340 wasn't the number of engines. It's problem was the number of tonnes. Note that the fuel consumption of the A340 compared to the B777; consumption is almost perfectly correlated to empty weight. Quad jets aren't less efficient that twins. Heavy jets are less efficient than lighter ones.
@@spongebubatz Yes, but the engines are also one of the heaviest components. Having them spread across the wing, rather than in a single spot on the wing, saves some structural weight. Further, the engines can be put further (on average) outboard, thus matching the spanwise weight distribution with the spanwise lift distribution. The main problem with the A340 was poor design resulting in excessive overall weight. It should in principle have been about 8% lighter than a comparable B777.
@@ralphsmith242 where talking about different topics now. While you’re right with weight distribution, alone the fact that all engines have to be maintained is a reason against a 4 engine aircraft. 4 engines save costs when it comes to planning and building, but cost a lot when it comes to maintaining. That are two different topics not related to one another
@@spongebubatz It is one reason against a quad jet, but there are important offsets. These include the weight issue I mentioned plus less reserve fuel because the thrust after an engine failure is only slightly asymmetric. The A340's major problem was not the number of engines. Its major problem was the number of tonnes.
Haven't heard the performance figures of the new A350F but the 777F carries 105 Tons. The A350F will likely be more efficient but it's a different landscape for cargo as less capacity at a higher price tag is not what cargo operators are looking for and there is no way the A350F is going to be cheaper than a 777F
Not yet and it’s questionable whether we would ever see one. With A330P2Fs and the anticipated A350F it doesn’t really make sense, at least not in the near future
@@kharabovsk it wasn’t a success, no, but what does that have to do with what we have previously talked about? Yes, there are A330 and A340 preighters of all versions except A342 and A345 and the NEOs. Yet there are cargo full conversions for the A330-200 and -300, but we won’t see them for the A340 due to already known reasons
When talking fuel efficiency, lets just say its complicated. The reason is bcuz the quad jets arent affected by the etops rules. In many instances they are able to fly more directly, saving on gas.
@@TysonIke Yes, on paper that is true. But, ATC around the world dont necessarily take that into account all the time. It is quite common for quad jets to get clearence by them, than twins to fly more direct routes. This is especially true in East asia. There used to be a vid here on YT where a pilot explains that, and he went on to give many examples where his 340 was cleared, but the twins were not, for more direct routes. Not everyone in the world takes the FAAs rule, as the gold standard.
I think that the A340 isn't appreciated for what it is. It far too often written off as a rather unsuccessful model rather than a far more successful 4 engined VARIANT of the A330, plugging the gap with a much lower level of investment until ETOPS changes rendered it unnecessary in many of its previous roles. However, where 4 engines are still required, it can make more sense than a 747 if the additional capacity is not required. I think it could well have a novel use (runways permitting) as a mixed passenger/cargo version for locations which still can't be served by 2 engined aircraft as the 727s, DC8s and MD11s reach the end of their lives - especially tourist locations where only having boat accessibility would be unacceptable. Having such a high degree of commonality with the A330 should also help with lower maintainance costs than the increasingly obsolete alternatives. How about a LEAP re-engine - being a relative of the A330, I doubt if ground clearance would be an issue?
interresting is also that edelweiss just has retired their a330 and kept their a340-300's because they wantet only one type of aircraft on longhaul and the a330-300 just does not have the range to reach some of edelweisses destinations with enough capacity. Swiss is said to be retiring three aircraft of its longhaul fleet and many people jumped to the conclusion, it would be the thre 343's they would retire, but they probably will at least keep two of them around for the routes where the 777 has to much overcapacity, but the a330 has not enough range.
If old A340 prices get low enough then perhaps it can be viable to develop an A340 P2F. Fuel efficiency is not as big of a concern for cargo airlines who only fly their aircraft at a fraction of the rate of passenger airlines. The biggest concern for freight airlines is the purchase price. Given that nearly no one wants to purchase/lease an A340 nowadays, I have a strong feeling that we may one day see a very small fleet of A340 P2Fs flying. However, there is a better use for old A340s - as engine testbeds. Given that flying testbeds HAVE to be 4 engined airliners, the A340 is a great solution to potentially replace older 747 flying testbeds.
That ship has sailed. The feedstock for a formal conversion program isn't there. Most of the retired ones have already been sold for scrap. It's not worth the expense to go through a conversion design and all the certification requirements and testing.
They just had the best aircraft for each side. Airbus had the A300F and A310F which were rather popular but other than that Boeing aircraft usually were more fitting, a 767F for example suits cargo ops better than the A330F
No, an A380F will never happen no matter whether it’s a converted one. They could only use the lower deck, the middle floor must stay for structural integrity and the upper deck is too weak to hold much freight. And we haven’t even talked about efficiency and weight yet
@@jantschierschky3461 another reason why you can’t use it is weight. The A380‘s additional payload isn’t too high for an aircraft that size, if you want to carry cargo in the upper deck you can’t even fill it to have the need to strengthen it
@@jantschierschky3461 no, the middle floor must stay. The cargo version wasn’t a hollow fuselage like the beluga but also had two decks. It’s essential for the A380, you can’t take it out!!!
I think the A350F is a mistake. It's too expensive up front cost. They should have done an A340 P2F instead. Buying freighters brand new is not ideal, and should only be last resort if no existing airframe conversion is available.
