Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The A346 Take-off Late Like The Other 340's?  
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

A340's always take off late cos they r under powered for their weight. same with the 346?

LGW

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6610 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1325 times:

I believe that the A340-600 will have a lot more power than the current A340s. I saw one take off from HKG for LAX yesterday and it performed more like a 747-400 than an A340, but I have no idea how it was loaded.

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1320 times:

The 346 has a much better thrust:weight ratio ,so should be a better climber althoug perhaps less economical?

User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A340's always take off late cos they r under powered for their weight - If that was true they would never have got a Type Certificate or a C of A.

User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1238 times:


LGW,

If 343 is not underpowered, it's built the way it was designed. You might as well say that all 777's are missing 2 engines.



User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

I think LGW meant that the plane had less than ideal power for its weight. Not that it was not safe. The 747-100 was underpowered but received its A/C and T/C. I read once (and I do not recall where) that the earliest 747 models took a very long time to reach cruise altitude. The example they gave was that on a JFK-LAX flight, the original 747 would not reach cruise altitude until the plane was near Chicago. Obviously Boeing fixed the problem quickly.

I think Airbus has heard the same complaint about the 340 and made the necessary changes.


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1223 times:

The A340 isn't "underpowered", other planes are overpowered. A twin has to be 50% overpowered, a trijet 33% and a quad 25% as they have to be able to take off with a lost engine.

User currently offlineSkystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

IIRC, the A346 has a power/weight ratio nearly equivalent to the 773!

Cheers,

Justin


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

Without getting technical,

We've all heard that the A340 climbs only because the curvature of the Earth, and so on. I've never seen an A340 climbout like a 777, or for that matter, an A320!

I too wonder if it was such a grave concern for Airbus, that they boosted the power substancially for the new A340-500/600 series.

Personally, I don't mind climbing slowly, I love to look out the window at lower altitudes, but I do bet that the airlines mind. Faster climb = fuel/money savings.

Cheers, DIA



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6610 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1188 times:

DIA,

Twin engines aircraft are always going to be more powerful than 4 engines. They cannot be compared. A twin has to be able to lose an engine (50% of thrust) and still climb away. It has to be very powerful to be able to do this. A 4 engined jet only has to be able to climb with one engine failure (25%), and therefore the other engines don't have to be as powerful.

As for faster climb=more fuel savings....look at the Space Shuttle!!! It burns tonnes and tonnes in seconds!!


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1176 times:

CX:
Comparing the space shuttle is like comparing the Wright Brothers craft to an F-16, two totally different subjects, which is what you were just telling me about comparing 4-engined A/C to 2-engined A/C. Point is well taken. Although, I do dee those 747-400s climbing fast as well.

The Concorde has four engines, but I will not compare it, because it is a different subject, like the space shuttle, so I will assume you are joking.

As with all commercial A/C, the quicker the craft can get to cruise altitude, the more efficient the flight will be in terms of saving on fuel costs. This is why on some short flights, the A/C will climb to altitude, say fl280, fly a few minutes, then begin its descent, rather than staying at fl150 the whole way. Good example: Phoenix to Palm Springs, it's a short hop that basically involves only climbing and descending. Just a few minutes are spent at altitude.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
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...
14 Bis Ready To Take Off On The "Century Flight" posted Tue May 16 2006 04:35:27 by LipeGIG
My Ipod And Take-off? Whats The Problem? posted Tue Oct 11 2005 06:07:22 by Fbm3rd
Take-off On The Wrong Runway posted Sun Dec 15 2002 16:08:51 by Avi
Which Plane Is Noisier On Take-off? posted Sat Mar 19 2005 06:47:27 by Hmmmm...
Ever Notice Everyone Is Quiet During Take Off? posted Thu Dec 28 2000 03:25:46 by Aeri28
Air Japan Is Set To Take-off! posted Mon Dec 4 2000 01:30:23 by Jiml1126
What Is The Take Off Speed Of A 747? posted Tue May 15 2001 15:25:31 by GF-A330
YVR: Spotters Take Off If You Try To See The A380 posted Mon Nov 27 2006 07:09:20 by Leelaw
Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:54:25 by Baron95
Is This Missing Winglet Take Off On A 340 Normal? posted Fri Dec 16 2005 07:00:43 by Danild