Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A330/A340 Takeoff Performance  
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

Which one of these two Airbus jetliners has the best takeoff performance?

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineYKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

A330 is pretty darn quick, I would guess around 5000-6000' when fully loaded, little over half of that when lightly loaded. Never flown on an A340 is I cant compare the two.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

I would think that the A330 has the best takeoff performance because of the two engines having more total thrust than the four CFM56-5C4s on the A340-200/300.

A340-200/300 total thrust with four 34,000lb thrust CFM56-5C4s is 136,000lbs
A330-200/300 total thrust with two 72,000lb thrust RR Trent 700s or GE CF6s is 144,000 or two P&W 4168s is 136,000.

User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

ENTER: THE A340-500 / 600 !!!!!!!!!!!

They will show the A340-200 / 300 how it should be done.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3252 times:

A340-500 total thrust with four RR Trent 553s is 212,000lbs and the A340-600 total thrust with four RR Trent 556s is 224,000lbs.

User currently offlineSkystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

There is no doubt that the A330 has better takeoff and climb performance than an A340 under normal operating circumstances, as it must be 100% overpowered if it loses an engine.

However an A340 only needs to be 33% over powered if it loses an engine. That is why it is quite leisurely on takeoff, but it doesn't need as much power as a twinjet. Just remember, as lazy as you think an A340 is, it's better to lose an engine in an A340 than in a B777 or A330, or practically any other twinjet for the matter - it'll have more power.

The A340 has better takeoff & climb performance with one engine out.

However, the A340-500/600 will have excellent takeoff performance, as their power loadings are at twinjet levels.



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3186 times:

I took a Singapore A340-300 from Copenhagen to Singapore last month. We took the whole runway, and it seemed to take ages to climb to any kind of altitude.

You know how most planes reduce power within 30 seconds or a minute of takeoff? They didn't cut back for at least 10 minutes.


User currently offlineSkystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3149 times:


On a SIN-CPH flight, you'd be pretty much be at MTOW, which may be as high as 275ton on the SQ343s. A340s don't get any heavier!

Typically, you'd get a climb rate of 1500fpm after rotation, so the reduction to climb thrust should occur about 1 minute after - I'd assume that it was a small reduction in thrust - to improve climb performance in the A340, from TOGA thrust you'd go to MCT (max cont. thrust), which gives you more power than the typical CLB thrust setting.

10 minutes would be quite long, given that TO power usually is limited for around 5 minutes.



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3116 times:


That just makes it a bit more unusual then. The flight was completely packed to the rafters, BTW. So we may have been a little overweight, if anything, for the 12.5 hour trip. We went over the treeline at the end of the runway no more than 100-150 meters above it. And I'm only guessing, but our climb rate did not seem any higher than 1000 fpm, or even less, We were not very much higher than the windmills that are out in the water when we passed them.

The last time I was in an airplane that seemed so underpowered was in a fully loaded Il-86, which seemed to take forever to get up to altitude.



User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7137 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

Charles, I just did a little investigation and math.
CPH - SIN is 5350nm. You most likely bent the route a little to avoid less pleasant airspace, so let's call it 5500nm. That compares to the 343 max range with full pax load = 7150nm.
A max range flight with full pax load requires some 250,000 lbs fuel, and the payload is then 60-65,000 lbs.

So (supposing that SAS is not supplying FUEL for SIN) the weight saved from only partially filled tanks is greater than the total pax load. You have not been anywhere near MTOW. You have been at empty weight 285k + payload 65k + fuel 175k = 525,000 lbs TOW. Or 80,000 lbs below MTOW.

CPH has nice and looong runways, at sea level, or rwy elevation around 2 or 3 feet  Smile/happy/getting dizzy I live there, and I know that climate was quite chilly. In direction S/E you go, as you also tell, immediately over sea water, therefore no noise abatement procedures. There is also little traffic in that direction - you were probably all alone with no other traffic to get out of the way of.

The 330/340s have computers to calculate the most economic take-off power setting.

Conclusion: Your take-off has been a rather much reduced power take-off, no way has it been a max power take-off. How much it was reduced only the flight crew knows (asuming that you didn't ask them).

If your 343 at max power had to use most of the CPH rwy for a flight only to SIN, in chilly September 2001, then it would never ever get off the ground at MTOW even on a 14,000 ft rwy, not to speak of a warm summer day or any rwy elevation.

The bottom line is: You paid SAS for a trip to SIN. And SAS gave you exactly that, and made sure that they did it at the least costs possible to maximise their own profit.

If you instead wanted buy physical forces applied on your body, then I would recommend that you visit the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen instead.  Big thumbs up

Best regards, Preben Norholm

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3084 times:


Pretty interesting. As I fly the A340 least of all (mostly I'm of MD-11s, A330s, 747s, A320s and 737s) I probably could not tell that they were at a very reduced power setting.

It was damned unnerving, though. In no other plane (except the Il-86) did I ever wonder if we were going to make the whole trip at treetop height  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineSkystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3060 times:


He flew on SQ  Smile Don't worry, I was assuming he was flying in the other direction, and that does have performance implications.

More seriously, how does FRA-SIN compare to CPH-SIN, I'd take it the former is shorter.

I've looked at your numbers, and although they generally seem ok on inspection, the fuel numbers are perhaps a bit too optimistic - even remembering that CPH-SIN is slightly shorter than SIN-CPH because of winds (airmiles vs statute miles).

I flew LH SIN-FRA, and the numbers were as follows - I've got the flight plan, and had a jumpseat ride.

CRZ: FL310 (till 60ton FOB), FL350 (till 30ton FOB), FL390. M0.82-0.83 crz spd.
CI (Cost Index) 160

FOB: 101,800kg/224,428lb
BRW: 268,800kg/592,596lb - 2,200kg below MTOW.
LDW: 175,100kg/386,025lb

So, here we were with an A340-313X (271ton MTOW) with a full pax load, and we were very close to MTOW, and yes, we used up a lot of runway. Almost 30°C and Vspeeds in the region of 160kias.

If we turn it around and turn it into a CPH-SIN, we can subtract about 10ton (perhaps even less) from the FOB at TO, so we'd have a BRW of 258,000 - some 20ton heavier than your calculations. However, Preben as you say, there really shouldn't be any TO/CLB problems (CPH at that time of the year is not too tough), and I'd say that FLX (derate) thrust was used now, having reviewed the situation.

Charles, one more point. The 1500fpm, I refer to is achieved once initial climb speed (V2+10) is achieved - very shortly after rotation, you may be not even be at 1000fpm yet. Now that I've reviewed your scenario, the climb performance may be a little better.

Just remember one thing - if you lost an engine Charles, you'd rather be on an A340 than a B777  Smile It's not entirely true that a twinjet with one engine out has the same power as a quad jet with one engine out. Why? Twinjets don't need to make the same climb gradients as Quadjets.



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...
Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading? posted Sat Jan 19 2002 01:40:11 by Hkg_clk
A330 Takeoff Performance posted Thu Jun 13 2002 19:50:50 by 762er
A340 Takeoff And Climb Performance posted Thu May 2 2002 18:58:10 by Js
Swiss First Class Cabin A330/A340 posted Tue Sep 5 2006 00:13:42 by Mozart
The A 350 XWB Impact On A330/A340 Sales? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 02:20:11 by 777ATech
RR Take The Lead On A330/A340 Programme posted Sun Mar 5 2006 12:16:42 by PM
Takeoff Performance posted Thu Jan 26 2006 16:22:05 by CHRISBA777ER
Qantas A330-300 Beijing Performance posted Wed Jan 11 2006 01:58:23 by MEA
A300/A310 V A330/A340 posted Fri Jul 29 2005 01:14:51 by Thegregster
Turboprop & RJ Takeoff Performance? - Aggravation posted Mon Apr 4 2005 18:41:40 by Boeing Nut