TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
In August I will be flying on a Virgin Atlantic A340-300 from JFK to LHR and I was wondering if anyone has ever flown on them. What are the takeoffs like on an A340-300? Are they slow climbing like alot of people have been said in other forums?
Luxair From Turkey, joined Jan 2001, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
TEDSKI,I flew with a A340-300 from Sabena
from Bussels to NY. Maybe slow (we have to think about another word) is not the right word for a takeoff in a A340!!! My friend was sitting next to the window and he is also a AC fanatic as I am but I can tell you, he was very affraid during the takeoff because the plane felt as it has no acceleration!!! There was nothing to feel about power or pushing back into your seat, nothing at all. But the flight was one of the best flights I ever had before because the plane was sooooo quit ahhh it was great and I was sleeping almost during
the hole trip!
Iainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1983 times:
I did not find the A340 a slow climber, I flew VS24 LAX-LHR in early Jan. I was up in the jumpseat on the climb, the take off roll was not very fast however I would not say it was a slo climber, I thought it did pretty good with a full load.
Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1957 times:
A close friend of mine commutes between YYZ and LHR. He flies either BA (B747 or B777) or AC (A340, B747 or B767). In the last year he has flown on all of these an equal number of times and he feels that the A340 is by far and away the quietest, smoothest of them all. He says that how you feel after an overnight flight from YYZ when you are going directly from the airport to work is important. When he arrives on an A340, he has had sufficient sleep to get him through the day (that is, unless you end up beside a crying baby in the next seat)!. BTW he rates the B767 as the worst of the bunch as far as conmfort is concerned.
KHI747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
Well on the way to LHR, with the winds in your favour, you wont even feel the lack of power on the A340.And if it all you do feel the lack of power on the plane it wont be unless you are paying alot of attention to the Navigation system onboard. There is no way that someone just sitting on board can feel that they are going any slow ...... i find some of the accounts quite ridiculous here as people are suggesting that they could actually feel "No acceleration"! He makes me laugh .....as for being pushed back in the seat .... with the exception of take off ..... i cant think of any plane that "pushes back" .....
Drive a BMW M5 and then you would know what "Push Back" is ...... !
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1879 times:
If you're sitting in seat 45B, what difference does it make if you feel the acceleration or not? And why the fear of no acceleration? These birds have flown a gazillion times with full payloads and no casualties, so whats to be afraid of? This is a passenger airliner for crying out loud, not an F-16. You're not supposed to be pushed back into your seat at Super-G forces upon takeoff. The contention that the A340 is an inferior aircraft because you don't feel the plane rocket off the runaway is absurd.
BostonBeau From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1833 times:
I've flown on VS's Lady in Red A340 and I did not notice any difference in its takeoff and that of the B747-100 they ordinarily were using between BOS and LGW at that time (the late, great Spirit of Sir Freddie). Sure, the A340 does not have the takeoff kick that a B757, B747-400, or even a B727 has. But does that mean that the A340 is underpowered, or that the others have a little extra ooomph for getting off shorter runways? The A340 was very comfortable though, and the only complaint I had with it was that the toilets were on the outside wall, and because of the A340's circular cross section, I would whack my head on the ceiling when peeing (I am 6'2" tall). I posted a joke about banging my head in an online forum (think it was on AOL), and the next day received an email from someone at VS apologizing, and saying that they would probably move the toilets at the next major overhaul...hehe
Luxair From Turkey, joined Jan 2001, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
KHI747, don't be so arrogant!!! We are not talking
about M5's here. Maybe you are in the wrong forum boy and 2nd read my post first and than make your
smart comments! Just for the guys here who can't wait to post their f***** comments until they read the end of mine, the A340 is my perferred long-haul plane.
LMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1811 times:
I flew an LH A340 6 years ago, and was impressed how quite it is on the inside. I was seated just aft of the wing. Climb was slow and even the captain admitted this. The plane is powered by CF56, which are A320 uprated engines !! That explains why it is so underpowered. Airbus had to trade power for fuel consumption. Remember their selling point was it's range. The short rollout was also impressive. I remember I was video taping the takeoff and had the winglet in view. In the playback the winglet simply disappeared just before rotation. I did not notice that while shooting, but it struck me watching the playback at home on a large TV screen. Watch out for that !
The 340 is one of the favorites with me, second only to the B744 .
Lax2000 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1799 times:
I flew on Virgin A340-300 from LAX-HWR and I thought we were going to end up in the Santa Monica Bay. We were probibly a little heavier than you will be and I wan't expecting the long roll, it was pretty weird. Now I'm used to it after a couple more a340 flights under my belt. Its a lovely plane to fly in, very smooth and comfortable, You will enjoy it, especially for only 6 or 7 hours.
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
The VS A340 isn't slow at all but not too fast either. I've flown in the Jumpseat a few times and I've got no problems with acceleration. I was a bit worried about the lack of acceleration at first but then the pilots told me that the acceleration is more than sufficient to perform a takeoff hauling a full payload.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1746 times:
This will not be the first time I have flown on a GE powered aircraft. I have already flown on CFM56 powered 737-300/400s with US Airways, United, and Continental and a CF-34 powered US Airways Express CRJ. Also last year I have flown on a GE CF6 powered Delta 767-300 from CVG to MCO and I am doing it again this year!
JMJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1729 times:
I took a flight not long ago on a full A330-300 (YYZ-YUL) which is a close cousin of the A-340 and the takeoff was slow on that one too. What bothered me about that is that the takeoff is my favorite part! I love that "pushed back in your seat" feeling. I'm always really disapointed when a plane takes off and I don't feel them Gs . I was never afraid though. The plane was very nice and comfortable.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1717 times:
What scared me about GE engines was the story a few months ago on the problem with the CF6 engines coming apart. Also the problem with the GE90 on various 777s that had problems, but I love the CFM56 on the 737-300 thru 900 models, love the takeoff power the 300 model has and how quiet it is versus the hushkitted P&W JT8D powered 200 model. The CF-34 engines on the CRJ are very quiet and smooth running.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3719 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1714 times:
What is it with you people ? Why don't you just sit down & relax when you get on an aircraft instead of worrying whether it is a slow climber or not. Personally I can't tell whether one aircraft climbs any faster than another.
GKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 25277 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1672 times:
I ain't been on an A340 but I have noticed them take-off. They aren't the slowest of climbers but compared to the 737,747 and 757 (especially the 757) they are made out to look slow. I have also seen A330 t/o, it wasnt too bad climbing out. I have been on A300 flights and there climbrate was impressive to say the least. Maybe its something to do with the fuel consumption as someone said in an earlier post. Anyway thats my opinion.
PS Enjoy your flight with VS, you'll love it.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Samspain From Spain, joined Feb 2001, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1662 times:
I have flown a lot on A340's (Air France, Air Portugal, Iberia, Lufthansa) and I do certainly agree that during the take off the plane seems to be frightenly slow... But then think about a full pay load 747-200 taking off. I had the same feeling. But the A340 is a fantastic and ultra confortable machine.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8195 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1645 times:
I think the A340's big issue is that the plane takes its liesurely time climbing up to cruising altitude. That was a no-no for SQ because this meant the plane had to dodge around the frequently-rough weather of the Bay of Bengal on the way to Europe. The 777-200ER's with their Rolls-Royce Trent 892 engines allow SQ to get the planes to smoother cruising altitudes quicker on the same route.
Generally, the A340-300 was a good plane for its time, but with ETOPS 180 it has been overtaken by the 777-200ER.