3 ms·

I've a question for you since you seem so knowledgeable on the subject. From my understanding the Airbus A330 and - A340 are pretty much the same plane, with t

I've a question for you since you seem so knowledgeable on the subject. From my understanding the Airbus A330 and - A340 are pretty much the same plane, with the exception that the 340 has 4 engines and the 330 2. Assuming that the desing is pretty much the same (inlcuding capacity of the fuel tanks) why is the range of the 340 much farther then the one of the 330. This seems somehat counter intuitive so I was wondering. Alas, I'm pretty sure that I'm somehow guilty of wrong think here. I just wonder why.

51Cards 9y ago
My understanding of the key difference between the 330 and the 340 is the maximum take-off weight and you can see the extra landing gear on 340 models due to this. MTOW being higher on the 340 allows it to carry more fuel even with a full cargo load which is the critical factor in the extended range. The 330 could achieve the same range if fully loaded with fuel but it couldn't do it with full cargo.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  I didn't consider the additional fuel, which the 340 is capable of carrying upon take-off. Makes a lot of sense and thanks for the insight. Reminds me of another dirty, little aviation secret: An airline may bump you, despite the fact that the plane has empty seats. The reason, again, is take-off weight. It's a lot more profitable to load an additional container than you. Even considering costs like compensation, hotel rooms and even a rebooking to a different airline. The source for that is my sister, who worked ground handling for the (now defunct) Swissair.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    "(now defunct)" - Maybe that bumping strategy only works for short term profits.
  - 51Cards 9y ago
    That is an interesting one!
InternetOfStuff 9y ago
> Alas, I'm pretty sure that I'm somehow guilty of wrong think here. I just wonder why. Not wrong, just too literal maybe. These are design ranges, with a standard payload and standard fuel loading. If you think about it, it makes sense: airplanes don't have a fixed range. Depending on how much payload and fuel you take along (at full payload, you probably can't fill your tanks to max capacity, or you'll exceed your max takeoff weight), you can get more or less far. The extreme case, an empty plane with full tanks, would have tremendous range but would of course make no economic sense. So they design airplanes for what they assume to be the sweet spot: certain routes with certain characteristics (say, long distance over water, traditionally needing more than two engines). So the A330 was designed for routes which were accessible to pre-ETOPS twin-engine planes, which apparently tended to be shorter. Conversely the A340 was designed with a focus on over-water routes, which are apparently longer.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  Thanks! The things you can learn here are awesome.

51Cards 9y ago

My understanding of the key difference between the 330 and the 340 is the maximum take-off weight and you can see the extra landing gear on 340 models due to this. MTOW being higher on the 340 allows it to carry more fuel even with a full cargo load which is the critical factor in the extended range. The 330 could achieve the same range if fully loaded with fuel but it couldn't do it with full cargo.

CaptainZapp 9y ago
I didn't consider the additional fuel, which the 340 is capable of carrying upon take-off. Makes a lot of sense and thanks for the insight. Reminds me of another dirty, little aviation secret: An airline may bump you, despite the fact that the plane has empty seats. The reason, again, is take-off weight. It's a lot more profitable to load an additional container than you. Even considering costs like compensation, hotel rooms and even a rebooking to a different airline. The source for that is my sister, who worked ground handling for the (now defunct) Swissair.
- njarboe 9y ago
  "(now defunct)" - Maybe that bumping strategy only works for short term profits.
- 51Cards 9y ago
  That is an interesting one!

InternetOfStuff 9y ago

> Alas, I'm pretty sure that I'm somehow guilty of wrong think here. I just wonder why. Not wrong, just too literal maybe. These are design ranges, with a standard payload and standard fuel loading. If you think about it, it makes sense: airplanes don't have a fixed range. Depending on how much payload and fuel you take along (at full payload, you probably can't fill your tanks to max capacity, or you'll exceed your max takeoff weight), you can get more or less far. The extreme case, an empty plane with full tanks, would have tremendous range but would of course make no economic sense. So they design airplanes for what they assume to be the sweet spot: certain routes with certain characteristics (say, long distance over water, traditionally needing more than two engines). So the A330 was designed for routes which were accessible to pre-ETOPS twin-engine planes, which apparently tended to be shorter. Conversely the A340 was designed with a focus on over-water routes, which are apparently longer.

CaptainZapp 9y ago
Thanks! The things you can learn here are awesome.