Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why The A340/A330 Takes So Much Time To Climb?  
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5943 times:

Im sorry if this topic has been covered so much, but why the A330/A340 family a/c take so much time for climb?

The B747-400 is way more heavier than the A340 and it climbs with more speed.

Is it the design? is it the engine power?

Could some one tell me...

Regards...


"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5894 times:

The A330 does not take forever to claim. It actually climbs quite quickly.

Regarding the A340, yes it is a slow climber, but only the A340-200/300. The A340-200/300 is powered by CFM56-5C which provides 34,000lb. of thrust. At the time the A340-200/300 was in development, there was no other engine available that was suitable. The CFM56-5C was the only one and was sufficient although a bit underpowered for the A340, but not to the point where it would be a safety threat.

There were talks a while ago about Airbus offering a re-engining program to re-engine the A340-200/300 for airlines that want more power. I forgot what engine they were offering. It never happened though.

The new A340-500/600 take-off like rockets because of the new 51,000lb. of thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 500s.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineKa From Switzerland, joined Apr 2000, 662 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5807 times:

From an ATC point of view the problem with A343/342 only exists until about FL70. From that point on the a/c has sufficient speed for a climb performance which is comparable to other langrange heavies.

KA.



Keep smiling - you might be on Radar!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5783 times:

Airlines keep ordering the 343, so obviuosly they don´t mind.

A332 ? not noticed that, on the contrary ...


User currently offlineKAL744 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

I have flown on Korean Air Airbus 330 several month ago and in my opinion I think the climb rate was quite well. Anyway, it was just a short flight leg from GMP to CJU but as the flight was full I think it did really well.

User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

**Im sorry if this topic has been covered so much, but why the A330/A340 family a/c take so much time for climb?**

Because the curvature of the earth isn't that great  Nuts


User currently offlineTom_eddf From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

It's just to give you a nice sightseeing! I always enjoyed flying onboard of LH's A342's out of Phoenix, watching the superstition mountains and the people rushing through the streets in scottsdale...

Anyway, as others already mentioned, it's because of the just good enough power of the A340-200/300, it's not at all the case with the A330. And the 747s can also be slow climbers if close to MTOW, in fact, the -100 was a horrible climber if heavy loaded.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5542 times:

Airlines keep ordering the 343, so obviuosly they don´t mind.

They do?

The bird's gained what... like three new customers since the turn of the decade?


User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2399 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5536 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well in my understanding much of the 343's climbing perfo problems had been solved with the latest versions: the A340-313X.

As I'm flying on the 330 I can tell you it has an average climbing perfo.
The 330-200 is even a very good performer I can tell you !!


FB.



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5503 times:

the latest versions: the A340-313X

Actually, the latest version would be A343E


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5480 times:

FB,
what's the climb rate like on the 330 from about FL200-340 or so on your longer routes such as FIH?


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5479 times:

Wow, Ka, I didn't know the A340 was even capable of flying at 70000 feet. That's far more impressive than anything else Airbus has ever done.

I'm so funny.

But seriously, the A330 climbed just fine, as I remember. It's not a 737 or 757, but then it's a lot heavier, so who would expect it to be?

R


User currently offlineStar_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5380 times:

Well aren't u funny AA737-823?  Smile I presume you do know that FL70 makes perfect sense in Europe (and is the FL equivalent of 7,000ft), the transition alititude isn't fixed at 18,000ft as it is in the US...

star_world


User currently offlineTom_eddf From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5270 times:

Flying Belgian:

If there were serious "problems" with the A340's climb performance, they have not been solved with the intro of neither the -313X nor the -313E, as they feature not only more powerful engines, but also a much higher MTOW (up to 275t vs. 257t for the -311).

What has been solved with the -313series was the issue with the long-range performance by increasing fuel capacity and MTOW.


User currently offlineCRJmx From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5196 times:

Why didn't Airbus have someone develop an engine for the early A340's? It only makes sense to have an engine that is right for the aircraft, not one that will "work". As a "more power" kind of guy, I just don't see how under-powered, or slightly under-powered is acceptable in aircraft design. If you're going to design a plane right, get the right engines for the job, not just some that are "available".




When it hits your lips, it's so good!!
User currently offlineKa From Switzerland, joined Apr 2000, 662 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5101 times:

AA737-823:
"Wow, Ka, I didn't know the A340 was even capable of flying at 70000 feet. That's far more impressive than anything else Airbus has ever done"

Just for your information AA737-823: We here in Europe also use flightlevel allocation below 18000ft. At the airport I am controlling the transition altitude is 5000ftfor example.
FL70 indicates 7.000ft not 70.000ft!

Please read correctly and be informed before commenting.

KA.



Keep smiling - you might be on Radar!
User currently offlineTom_eddf From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5032 times:

CRJmx:

Airbus indeed *had* someone developing an engine for the A340 - it was International Aeroengines (IAE) who failed to get the proposed V2500-SuperFan running. The design would have been a modified V2500 (like those used on the A32x) with a larger fan and an extremely high bypass ratio.

As we know, the design never went into production and Airbus had to select an alternative powerplant for the A340 in the late design phase. As more powerful alternatives would have been to heavy for the wing (the RR RB211-535 or PW2037 come to mind), the cfm56 was the only alternative.

Rumors say that launch customer LH was so much pissed of by IAEs inability to develop the proposed engine that they switched the engines for the A320s from the V2500 to the CFM56 as well (I guess it was more a matter of commonility back then, they indeed ordered V2500 power A321 later on).

Cheers,
T.


User currently offlineCRJmx From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4978 times:

Thanks Tom. Maybe it wasn't such a bad thing. I've heard that the V2500's aren't that great, reliability wise.



When it hits your lips, it's so good!!
User currently offlineTurtle From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4917 times:

Ka,
I suggest you lighten up. The purpose of this forum for us ignorants is to GET INFORMED. AA737-823 interpreted it as 70000 ft, make a silly comment out of it and Star_world cleared it up. Now A737-823, I and probably others here in the US learned something new and that's a good thing.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4806 times:

Heh I think he was joking anyway.

IAE had lots of trouble with the superfan... mostly wanting too much, like a 10:1 bypass ratio. It would have been the perfect engine.

N


User currently offlineUAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1566 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

I have heard that the A343 mechanics are having fits with all the bird strikes from behind....... Yeah sure


It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlineWing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1575 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4524 times:

Hi Ka,
As I understand you work at ATC.Which airport in Germany are you working for.I am a frequent visitor at most German Airports with my company.WING



Widen your world
User currently offlineKa From Switzerland, joined Apr 2000, 662 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

Wing:

Yes I am APP controller, but I don´t want to talk about the exact airport here on the forum for different reasons. If you give me an email adress I am happy to answer it personally to you.

Thanks for understanding,
KA.



Keep smiling - you might be on Radar!
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...
Why Do Flight Times Vary So Much? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 08:53:39 by CoolGuy
Why Does Air Travel Do So Much Than Rail? posted Sun Aug 13 2006 23:45:56 by Glom
How Much Time To Connect At JFK? posted Wed Feb 1 2006 18:49:26 by DL787932ER
Why Are US Carriers In So Much Trouble? posted Tue Aug 30 2005 09:34:06 by B787
Why Is Frank Lorenzo Hated So Much? posted Wed Jun 15 2005 06:31:08 by IslandHopperCO
Why Does WN Like BWI So Much? posted Tue Sep 14 2004 00:07:21 by Usairways16bwi
Why Exactly Is USAir In So Much Financial Trouble? posted Fri Aug 13 2004 21:45:09 by Shuttledweller
Why Do Ticket Agents Type So Much? posted Sat Jul 31 2004 05:06:56 by Cory6188
Why Is Tom Bradley Hated So Much? posted Wed Jul 28 2004 01:30:19 by Planecrazy2
Why Is MEA Suddenly Getting So Much Publicity? posted Sat Mar 13 2004 18:40:31 by Nycfuturepilot