Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Take Off On An A340  
User currently offlineAC330 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 338 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4872 times:

I have only flown the Airbus 340 twice.The first time was from Toronto to London Heathrow and the second time was from Heathrow to Calgary, both on Air Canada. I found that on both flights the take off seemed very sluggish as though the airplane was really struggling to climb on takeoff. It seemed do be a very slow climb. Has anybody else noticed this?? I am sure that being fully loaded with people, fuel and cargo plays a big role. What have your A340 takeoffs been like?? Both of my flights were on the 340-300 series. Does it feel the same way on the newer 340-500 and 600 series???

AC330

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineElal106 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 975 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4851 times:

hey AC330,

People had told me this before and I experienced the same as you mentioned on my VS A340-300 flight last summer!! Flying a 744 on the way back showed how powerful she was compared to the a340 on takeoff...or at least it felt like it!


User currently offlineAC330 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4834 times:

It is really amazing because I have never experienced that feeling on the 747 either...it seems very powerfull and climbs much faster on takeoff. Even the A330 feels much more powerfull on takeoff than the 340.

AC330


User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Heh, this is a weekly discussed topic about the A340's take off.

How does an A340 take off? It uses the curvature of the earth.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4762 times:

Even the A330 feels much more powerfull on takeoff than the 340

Why wouldnt it? Being a modern twin, it's naturally going to have a significantly higher power-to-weight ratio....


User currently offlineROP From Thailand, joined Jun 2001, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4623 times:

however i love A340 becoz it's much more quiet than 747...better deep sleep..

User currently offlineNoelG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4579 times:

I have only flown once on an A330, on AC from YYZ-LHR. I noticed the take off seemed very sluggish, but put it down to the pilot being gentle with the throttles. It felt exactly the same on the AC 762, 763 and A320 I have flown on as well.

Maybe their pilots are a just a little gentler on the throttle than other airlines?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

If you want real acceleration, I've not found anything to beat the BAE 146! Real back of seat stuff, and climb rate is absolutely astonishing! Big grin

But I suppose Concorde would win every time (if I had the money!)

Noel.  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4520 times:

You do tend to trundle down the runway in an A340, but the aircraft has plenty of power and it's perfectly safe. It's a consequence of its super-efficient design coupled with long range.

In fact, those clever people at "The World's Favourite Aircraft Manufacturer"TM even designed a special take-off setting that's deliberately lethargic, to save even more fuel and wear and tear on the aircraft.


User currently offlineLH526 From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 2379 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4489 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

As much as I like the A340 in general (Gracious, great cabin, ..), so much I hate the take-off performance (especially during FLEX-takeoffs).
It was when I went off to Sao Paulo earlier this year on LH502, our climb out was so flat I thought we would make it back to the airport because of a problem or failure, compared to the B744 used on LH526 to SCL (a simmilar route) the B744 had much more power and a much higher climb rate.

Mario
LH526



Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4454 times:

NoelG it's funny you should mention the BA-146, as this aircraft type is not really renound for it's how should i say it, "performance". I've never flown on one of these(i want to though) but from what i've heard it's a slug, both in terms of cruising speed and rate of climb. I sure like the look of those little babies though  Smile Regarding the A340's sluggish takeoff performance i'd say that it comes down to the Flex takeoff. Airlines probably dictate a low power setting for takeoff to save the engines. The A340-600 should be on par with a 747's takeoff(from a pax's point of view) with those 4 enormous turbofans.

User currently offlineMD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4412 times:

Here we go again.....

1. The A 340-200/300 are sufficiently powered to operate safely within all requirements given by the regulations otherwise there wouldn be any granted type-certificates. Period!
2. If an airline really wants to save on maintenance costs without compromising on safety, they rather use the flex takeoff feature (I haven't heard from airports that charge less tax if you only use half of the runway to takeoff....) and by doing that save a substantial amount of money due to the lower engine deterioration.

Also, when you buy an airline ticket, you basically pay the airline to bring you from A to B safe and sound, but as far as I know, the general terms of transportatio doesn't include anything like a "guaranteed astonishing takeoff performance".... If you want to have this astonishing acceleration feeling, save the money for an airticket but rather buy a rollercoaster ride!!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Cheers, Thomas


User currently offlineERJ135 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4382 times:

Of course no two planes are exactly alike in performance but it must be remembered that the A340 was originally designed to use those ultra high by pass engines and was directed at economical operation above out right speed.
Take the wing for example, it is very wide for the size of aircraft and considerable less sweep than say a 747 which was built for speed.

Many people dislike and even hate the airbus aircraft for no other reason than the fact it isn't made by Boeing. So in short no it doesn't climb like an f14 because it wasn't designed to, it will however take off and fly very well to where ever the company wants to fly it just as it was always intended to do.



I remember when the DC-3 was new!
User currently offlineMD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4354 times:

ERJ135,

I could not have said it better! Hope you don't mind that I added you on my respected users list!!

Cheers and G'day, Thomas


User currently offlineLijnden From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4338 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have flown only once on the A340 from Mauritius to CDG on Air Mauritius and I found the take off to be long and the climb very slow. Also the speed was only around 820 km/h and the altitude was not higher than 34000 ft. I had the feeling that this was all done to fly economical.


Be kind to animals! Last trip: ORF-IAD-NRT-IAD-ORF with UAExpress and ANA
User currently offlineZSSNC From Germany, joined Feb 2003, 428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

As for your question about the takeoff performance of the A340-600. It is really good, not at all comparable to the sluggish takeoff performance of the older A340 models. The plane seems to climb with the same pitch as a 747, at least. As for the takeoff performance of the BAe 146: I found it sluggish too. And when on a 50 minute flight the pilot told us about 30 minutes into the flight that we had now reached our cruising altitude of 16000 feet you can imagine how the climb performance of the BAe 146 is. But perhaps that is just my feeling as I am used to flying with "stronger" aircrafts.

ZSSNC



Airbus A340-600 - the longest temptation in the sky
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

"Also, when you buy an airline ticket, you basically pay the airline to bring you from A to B safe and sound, but as far as I know, the general terms of transportation doesn't include anything like a "guaranteed astonishing takeoff performance"...."

LOL !! Couldn't have said it better.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4134 times:

In terms of the A340-500 and -600 vs. the A340-300, its the difference between night and day.

The -500 and -600 take off like spaceships.

N


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4124 times:


In terms of the A340-500 and -600 vs. the A340-300, its the difference between night and day.

The -500 and -600 take off like spaceships.


That's called learning from their past mistakes. Airbus has learned from it. Unfortunately, many people still don't want to believe it and insist the -300 has good climb performance.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

The 340-300 was issued a type certificate. Big deal. In the regard that it takes too long to reach cruise altitude, one can fairly say it is underpowered. The 747-100 was also underpowered airplane in that regard even though the FAA issued a type-certificate. In the GA world, I hear you want to avoid flying the Diamond Katana from high airports because it is 'underpowered' despite getting through type certification.

User currently offlineCrank From Canada, joined May 2001, 1562 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

I haven't been on an A340 yet, but I have been on an A330-300, and it's da bomb! we used no more than 5000 feet of the runway and the plane was full, and it was a trans-atlantic flight. I really like this plane, hopefully when I'll fly on an A340 I'll get the same impression.

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8732 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4041 times:

As for the -500 and -600, are their FLEX takeoffs similar to those of the -200 and -300? That could probably preserve the engines even better, considering that even less of the engines' performance would be needed.

And to all those who don't like FLEX takeoffs: it's done for economic reasons, so it saves your money.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3998 times:

FLEX takeoffs are available across the Airbus product line, I believe, and they work mostly the same.

Its the same thing as taking off with derated power on a Boeing.

N


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8732 posts, RR: 42
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3988 times:

What I meant to ask is whether the -500 and -600 will use FLEX to an extent that will make them use as much runway as the -200 and -300. I could see the point of that being reducing engine wear even more, but reaching VR after a shorter part of the runway would mean slightly increased safety.


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

Aloges:- Yes... FLEX take offs are like using up as much runway length as possible with less thrust possible calculating elevation, temperature, runway condition. V speeds etc... Feel free to correct me though.

User currently offlineTom_eddf From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

The thrust-reduction trough flex-takeoff is limited, depending on certain conditions, to an amount of roughly 25%. That is achieved by using a temperature setting higher than the actual outside air temperture, i.e. 30 to 50 degrees C.

The more powerful aircraft will therefore use less runway than the less powerful, and that's the reason behind the phenomenon that an A330 or 345 will use less runway even using the same FLEX technique like the A343.

Correct me if i'm wrong  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


25 Stratofish : Apart from that FLEX talk: I have so far flown on the A340 -200 and 300. I can confirm that the 343 take off felt sluggish, but we didn´t use all of
26 DIA : The A340-200/300 has an excellent safety record and performs to spec.'s. But it will always be a slow climber when compared to many other a/c. Getting
27 Sebolino : Who cares if they climb slowly ? Really, that's not the point. It's the same with people who insist to have a 150+ hp car. A car in normal use, is mad
28 Dynkrisolo : It matters to airlines when the slower climb of the 343 causes operational inconveniences for other aircraft. Airlines complained to Airbus. Airbus li
29 Archie : Hi, I flew on the A340-300 on April (Iberia) from ORD to MAD. Take off roll was pretty slow, but I liked it anyway. I also flew on the 767-300 (AeroMe
30 Post contains links Hmmmm... : I have on my hardrive a video clip shot by Jhooper, and he is filming the take-off of an L-1011 from hawaii from his window. I have watched it many ti
31 Flyingbronco05 : The A340 has a reputation for being a horrible climber. FB05
32 VonRichtofen : It's too bad you weren't taking off out of Calgary. On a hot day, plus with Calgary at 3500ft above sea level the A340 is a dog. It chews up most of t
33 BWIA 772 : Hmmmmmm Well that 1011 was having a bad day. My firts flight on the 340 was in May. The cabin is really quiet so much so that if ound when the wheel w
34 AndrewAir : I flew on a CX A340, SFO to HKG, and on the return flight an 744 last summer. It being only my second time on a A340 I also thought the takeoff was sl
35 TK : I love the A340-300's takeoff and climb. It's smooth, quiet and graceful- exactly the way air travel should be. The A340 provides the most comfortable
36 Saab2000 : The Bae-146 does indeed have poor climb performance. But it can get airborne quickly and its initial pitch angle is very impressive indeed - when the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
14 Bis Ready To Take Off On The "Century Flight" posted Tue May 16 2006 04:35:27 by LipeGIG
Is This Missing Winglet Take Off On A 340 Normal? posted Fri Dec 16 2005 07:00:43 by Danild
EU: A380 Take Off On Discovery Ch Right Now! posted Tue Jun 28 2005 21:05:45 by Solnabo
LHR Take Off On 9L At The Mo - Why? posted Fri Jun 24 2005 20:35:11 by Lazyshaun
Gulf Air J Class On An A340? posted Thu Jul 22 2004 16:36:13 by ToBEYwithMEA
Can You Actually Take This On An Airplane? posted Wed Feb 26 2003 00:38:42 by 727LOVER
Columbia STS-107 Take Off On Thursday! posted Tue Jan 14 2003 20:30:36 by DC-10 Levo
Take-off On The Wrong Runway posted Sun Dec 15 2002 16:08:51 by Avi
Nicest Color Scheme On An A340 posted Mon Apr 29 2002 16:54:18 by Funny
I Take Off On My Maiden JetBlue Flight In 2hrs posted Fri Aug 10 2001 10:41:22 by LHMark