A340 Weight Distribution Error ?

ryanCX · Post by **ryanCX** » 10 Apr 2007, 13:23

Airbus blaming the airlines, that's outrageous. Its not a Boeing-Airbus thing, just bad management.

Reducing the cargo in the front of the aircraft is hardly a solution if it amounts for 10% of the total cargo.

I see more free/discounted A330s for A340-600 customers.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 10 Apr 2007, 14:39

All A330 A340 operate in the Fuselage diameter 5.64 m.

A340-200
Overall length 59.39 m.
Maximum takeoff weight 275 tonnes
Maximum landing weight 185 tonnes
Maximum zero fuel weight 173 tonnes
Maximum fuel capacity 155,040 Litres
Typical operating weight empty 129 tonnes
A340-300
Overall length 63.6 m.
Maximum takeoff weight 275 (276.5) tonnes
Maximum landing weight 190 (192) tonnes
Maximum zero fuel weight 178 (181) tonnes
Maximum fuel capacity 140,640 (147,850) Litres
Typical operating weight empty 129.3 (130.2) tonnes
A340-500
Overall length 67.9 m.
Maximum takeoff weight 372 (380) tonnes
Maximum zero fuel weight 230 (232) tonnes
Maximum fuel capacity 214,810 (222,000) Litres
Typical operating weight empty 170.9 (174.8 ) tonnes
A340-600
Overall length 75.3 m.
Maximum takeoff weight 368 (380) tonnes
Maximum landing weight 259 (265) tonnes
Maximum zero fuel weight 245 (251) tonnes
Maximum fuel capacity 195,881 (204,500) Litres
Typical operating weight empty 177.8 (181.9) tonnes

Notice
A330-200
Overall length 58.8 m.
Maximum takeoff weight 230 (233) tonnes
Maximum landing weight 180 (182) tonnes
Maximum zero fuel weight 168 (170) tonnes
Maximum fuel capacity 139,100 Litres
Typical operating weight empty 119.6 tonnes
A330-300
Overall length 63.6 m.
Maximum takeoff weight 230 (233) tonnes
Maximum landing weight 185 (187) tonnes
Maximum zero fuel weight 173 (175) tonnes
Maximum fuel capacity 97,170 Litres
Typical operating weight empty 122.2 (124.5) tonnes

Or do the Product Comparison

As every one can see, the same fuselage elements are used in all the types.
To extend the fuselage a segment is added. The 600 is extended 15m.
The more sections are added before the point of gravity, the more front -nose - heavy the aircraft gets.

Not so much like the extended DC-8, the A340 is extended in front section of the aircraft. Too much extension at the rear would make the aircraft unstable on ground.

With every extension comes additional weight. Therefore the landing gear had to undergo modifications. You will have noticed the Maximum zero fuel weight does not grow proportionally with the length. Also the heavier types are equipped with more powerful (heavier) engines.
Too ensure long distance, also tanks have to be adjusted.
Therefore each A340 type has a specific weight and balance sheet.

Every destination, has a different distance, load and flightplan (route) therefor aircraft types should only be compared on same routes.

Furthermore not all F or C-class compartments are not fitted the same way, nor are the galley the same. Some airlines have a much more important endowment than others.
The coincidence that two A340-600 weight the same is very little.
And how is a business correspondent qualified to evaluate W&B on that?

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 10 Apr 2007, 15:24

smacDC-10 wrote:The passengers are probably too fat! Did anybody ever think of that?

Perhaps this refers to the fat cats who travel up front in first clas?

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 10 Apr 2007, 15:55

ryanCX wrote:Airbus blaming the airlines, that's outrageous. Its not a Boeing-Airbus thing, just bad management.

Reducing the cargo in the front of the aircraft is hardly a solution if it amounts for 10% of the total cargo.

I see more free/discounted A330s for A340-600 customers.

One solution might be for an airline to load the bulky, lighter-weight cargo in the front compartments and the heavier cargo in the rear.