Red Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2115 times:
Just wanna know what you guys think about it especially for those who travel often and have been on many diff. types of acfts. I just have a feelings that airbuses have less powerful takeoff and less steep climb rate. Any experience out there?
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 13265 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
It depends on which aircraft you are talking about; twin engined widebody aircraft have very powerful t/offs, since the aircraft need to be prepared for an engine failure at V2, the most critical part of the climbout. Therefore you're unlikely to notice much of a difference between the 777 and A330; of course, a lighter A330 using a long runway will not find the same need for urgency as a heavy 777 taking off from a short runway (i.e. a DL 777 taking off from DUB n/s to ATL).
The A340, being a four engined aircraft, doesn't need to have that same reserve, in that if one engine fails, it still has 3 more. It is, by common consent, a fairly poor climber, but hell it's gorgeous, so I'll forgive it anything. (see the SAS/CAL/LAN/CX A340 pictures if you don't agree!)
Now, where you'll really notice a difference is between the 757 and A321. Heathrow is a good example. (I'm being rather tongue-in-cheek here, so don't be offended!) The RR powered BA 757s don't seem to understand that the runway is 2 miles long and they don't have to take off like a bat out of hell, but bless their little APUs, they're up in about 10-15 seconds on a good day! Then come the A321s, Aer Lingus, BMI, Swissair etc; sees 12,000' runway - why sweat it - nice derate and off we go! Still, I know which one I'd rather jumpseat in!
AA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1973 times:
haha Kai tak i like the "bat out of hell" regaurding the 757 taking off, but the biggest thing is because the engines are VERY powerfull.. its way over powered if you ask me... correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the 757 RR have the same engines as the 767 RR?
Marrty From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
An Airbus aircraft may seem less powerful to a passenger on takeoff and climb if the pilot has selected the "FLEX" thrust setting. The Flex setting applies reduced thrust during the takeoff which reduces fuel consumption. A Flex thrust departure takes into consideration the runway length, aircraft weight, etc. Flex thrust also reduces wear on the engines.
You will feel the real power if the pilot selects the higher "TOGA" thrust setting, which is less fuel efficient.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2682 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1897 times:
Perhaps if someone has the time, it would be interesting to see a thrust vs weght ratio for various aircraft. That may explain the reason for the difference in acceleration, which gives the sensation of power.
Spectre242 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1866 times:
I had always been under the impression (indeed I have read a few references to this in books) that Airbuses (particulary the A320 family) were capible of very good takeoff performance in comparison to other similar aircraft.
I was at Belfast City Airport on a tour and guy taking me around said that they could take an A321 no problem, but as for the 757 - well it could land, but take off was a different story.
Megatop From Denmark, joined May 1999, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
I agree that the B757 has a heigh power/weight ration, but if you look at ect. A300-600R, it has the same ration. I can tell you, that the takeoff in the A300-600R is very powerfull, and the climb is very steep.
Indianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
Airbuses are not in any way "less" powerful than other aircraft, atleast not the narrowbodies. The A32X family has the "Flex" thrust setting which allows for lower thrust settings for longer rwy's.
As far as the A340 is concerned, it was built to serve specific routes (ie. medium gauge,ultra long range routes) which it does more efficiently than any competing airliners. The Fuel Burn per Seat is the LOWEST ever, so it is among the most economical aircraft out there. I heard from sources with a local carrier that they could make operational profits even with a 55% load if they used a A340. so it must be pretty economical.
The trade off made is performance wrt takeoff and climb. I hear it takes 20 minutes to reach cruise than say the A330 or the B777, and on a long route like say DEL-ORD ns, it can take an hour more than a 744 (if a 744 could fly that far that is!). But the economics of the operation is what makes the A340 a winner.
If a carrier is looking for pure economics then the A340 wins out hands down. But it does take a beating on the climb performance.
I hear that there are some airports like DEL from where the A340 cannot operate full-load during summers even though it has 11000 feet runway!
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3191 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (14 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1827 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
let me let you in on a little secret....
those BA 757s doing the rocket impressions at LHR are no where near their MTOW
now, head on over the LGW and watch an Air Transat 757 takeoff for Canada... you see what a near MTOW takeoff of a 757 looks like... it uses ALOT of runway.
As for the A320 series.... just watch an A319 sometime... POCKET ROCKET!
The a321 is less sprightly for sure, but still, it performs very well.
The a340 is a slow climber.... but then again it doesnt need a high rate fo climb, its going a long way. (yes i know it annoys ATC but still). A330s are fairly sprightly, somewhere between a 767 and a 747.... A310s and A300s are as sprightly as DC-10s and 767s....
Oh and BAs 757s use RB.211-535E4s
BAs 767-300ERs use RB.211-524H
the -524H is a much more powerful powerplant.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Airmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 391 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (14 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 1757 times:
I Dont Think So! not only did I see two spectacular high speed and steep take offs, one a Gulf Air A340 and the other an Alitalia A300 at LondonHR in 1995, that very day I got to experience the same on an Emirates A300 which me and my family were travelling on, the experience was fantastic, never had such a take off ever before
757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (14 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
Have any of you people been on a 737-500? Mine was nowhere near MTOW, but I've never been on anything as good since! It was like being strapped to a rocket, and the engines made this really distinctive noise before full throttle was applied.
RE the BA Boeing 757 fleet. Most of the oldies (G-BIK-/G-BMR-) are powered by less powerful RB211-535C's, whilst most newer models use the more powerful RB211-535E4. However, both powerplants are very good performance wise, and I've seen plenty lift off from Heathrow pushing 15-20 degree climbouts.
My local airport is Birmingham, England (BHX/EGBB). We get loads of 757's here, as well as the A320 family. I flew on a 757 from BHX to Orlando via Bangor, Maine a few years ago and she was a fully loaded E4 powered bird. Despite operating near MTOW from a 2600m runway, this aircraft still had a very powerful take off role and rotated with plenty of runway to spare. At the other end of the spectrum, I see charter configured A321's trundle off the same runway on shorter intra-European routes and by the time they have lifted off the ground, they don't have much runway to spare. Now the A319....Well that is a different story.
I'm not saying airliner A performs better than airliner B, but these are just things I've noticed, that's all.
Red Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (14 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1691 times:
I do think 777 is over-powered especially those powered by GE90. Each engine is more than 100 000lbs which adds up to more than 200 000lbs for two engines. A bigger and heavier 744 are only operated by 4 X 50 000 engines, which is the almost the same as 777 in terms of thrust. Keep in mind that 777 (not 773) is lighter and a bit smaller.
As for 737-500, I do believe that it is a rocket as someone mentioned in the above. -500 has the shortest fuselage out of the 737 family.
and I expect A332 and A318 are powerful too, but I am amazed to hear that A300-600R is a powerful acft too.