Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340 Grunt  
User currently offlinePsa182 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 878 times:

Hello again, another question about takeoff power  I read on here a few months back, that the A340 felt supremely gutless on takeoff, can anybody else please enlighten me on this? To be honest, i find it hard to believe that such an aircraft would be certified to fly, if it really does lack that much power. Surely, wouldnt it be too risky trying to takeoff in case of a single, or even a double engine failure? Would be great to hear from anybody about this matter. Anyone ever spoken to a pilot from this otherwise nice machine? Thankyou 

2 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineAFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (15 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 861 times:


Please browse the archives. This topic has been brought up quite a few times.

I aso advise you to browse the archives of the Tech/Ops forum; there are some really interesting and backed up posts.

Best regards,
Alain Mengus

User currently offlineSkystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (15 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 810 times:


The A340 is certainly not known for being a rocket, it has a power loading of 4.39 (lbs/lbs st - 271,000kgs - CFM56-5C4). In comparison, the 772 has a power loading of 3.64 (656,000 lbs/297,824 kgs - PW4090). A 744 has a power loading of 3.85 (875,000lbs/396,895kgs - PW4056). For the Boeings, the figures will change depending on engine type. The A340's engines are much of a muchness. On the A340-300E, a 5% thrust bump is available for takeoff.

Whether it is underpowered, certainly compared to its competitors it is not laden with much power. From what I've been told by a CX captain (also flies the 333 with RRs, flew the 744 and the L1011, and 733 with AN), for the job, it is well balanced. Its main task is for long haul jobs and it does those very economically (uses less fuel than 777, but has two extra engines to worry about - maintenance). It may cruise slower than the Boeings, but that's a function of wing design. Compared to what a lot of people say, it's not that much slower, IMHO. M0.02 is not much of a difference, it's only noticeable because the sectors it flies are so damned long. Extra power will improve climb performance.

Even with a single engine failure, the A340 will still have a better power loading than a comparable twin.



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...
A340 500 Ex Kingfisher posted Wed Sep 2 2009 11:07:20 by Corernagh14
Gulf Air Selling A340 Fleet posted Tue Sep 1 2009 13:23:33 by SQ_EK_freak
1 A340-300 For Surinam Aw posted Sun Aug 30 2009 09:26:03 by FCKC
Another Arik Air A340 500 Delivery From Airbus? posted Fri Aug 28 2009 10:11:59 by Corernagh14
Is Etihad Phasing Out A340-500? posted Fri Aug 28 2009 01:37:35 by Erhard
Thai Airways And Their Four A340 500 posted Wed Aug 26 2009 12:01:41 by Corernagh14
Iberia A340-600 Orders posted Sat Aug 22 2009 01:54:37 by Corernagh14
VS A340 Return's To HKG As Emergency posted Thu Aug 20 2009 14:42:48 by T8KE0FF
Identify This A340 posted Sun Aug 16 2009 03:22:07 by OHLHD
Kingfisher A340-500 - 3 Aircraft At TLS posted Sun Aug 16 2009 02:27:22 by Corernagh14