Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Much Faster Is The 777 Vs. A340?  
User currently offlineLanPeru From Peru, joined Jun 2001, 645 posts, RR: 9
Posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Ok, I don't want to spark an A vs. B war, I just want to know, how much faster would a 777 be on a route that normally takes 8:35 on the A340. Also, which would be more economical?

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3221 times:

AFAIK, 777 economic cruising speed is .84 mach, 340 is around .83.

all other things being equal, 777 will no more faster than 340 for 15mins.

r panda


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

Singapore - Paris used to take 14 hours and 30 minutes on an Airbus A340-300X Celsetar (25 Oct 1998 - 27 March 1999)
Singapore - Paris now takes 13 hours 40 minutes on a Boeing 747-400 Megatop (28 October 2001 - 20 March 2002)

Singapore - Paris is reportedly 15 - 20 minutes faster on a Boeing 777-200 (14 hours 10 minutes - 14 hours 5 minutes) (Articles, SIA rumours)



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3182 times:

I thought the 343 cruised at .82 especially since Airbus are making a big deal of the 340NG cruising at .83

User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3167 times:

Everytime I'm working night shift, I'm dealing with many flights from Asia (Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong...) to Europe. So I can tell you this:

The A340s are cruising at M0.82 while the B777s M0.84, whatever the airline operating them.


Regards
MightyFalcon



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineRlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1086 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Not to start a war, but the 340 takes quite a bit longer to reach cruise altitiude. The 777 can reach altitude in one hop.


I can drive faster than you
User currently offlineTom_eddf From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 451 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Afaik, the A340 is also able to reach altitude in one hop. It just certainly takes longer.

User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

True, the A340 takes a bit longer to take it to cruise.

A340 = .82

B777 = .84



Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

and 747-300 & 747-400 cruise at .85

r panda


User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

But anyway cruising mach of airplanes do'nt go 'by the book'. Wind, temperature, cost index.. etc affects the cruising mach. The B777-300 can go up to .87 if necessary.


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineHardkor From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 2877 times:

whenever I watch the A340 takeoff, it looks so painfully slow. I wouldn't mind flying on one, but I can imagine that it would take some time to reach cruising altitude. Also, don't two engined aircraft generally climb faster than four engined ones?

User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

The A340 you see was using FLEX thrust probably. If not, it can lift off pretty fast.


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineJesseycy From New Zealand, joined Aug 2001, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 2856 times:

Once again, not to start another war, but really, the A340 is gives the impression of a snail sometimes.... The takeoff, the crusing, well, even the noise, I find the A340 much more quiet.......

But unlike other people, I really like the slow takeoff, there's nothing like the rumble of a CX A340 down Auckland's runway, taking forever to takeoff......


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

Well, tonight I saw CX829 takeoff on rwy 33R. First when I saw it, I thought it was taxi-ing, but the speed was definitely faster than normal taxi speed. And later it started to pick up when it was half way down to the rwy.

Pax load is full tonight.

r panda


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

MR BA The A340 you see was using FLEX thrust probably. If not, it can lift off pretty fast

I love that excuse for A340 Performance. Its a polite way of saying underpowered Thats why there is a 340NG and Trent powered 500 and 600s. A340s could have/ or should have had higher thrust engines from the beginning. I don't think many die hard A340 fans would disagree there.


User currently offlineMD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Boeing767300
The 340 is definitely NOT underpowered, otherwise it would be unsafe, and therefore also the authorities wouldn't have issued the certificate, right?The 340NG is a "little" bigger, that's the main reason for the Trent engines, nothing else!! Didn't you happen to hear that airlines are more worrying about economics than to have a fancy overpowered (and therefore uneconomical) plane?
Just to make clear, I'm not a "die hard" A340 Fan,as you can see from my username......

Cheers, Thomas


User currently offlineBobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

perhaps that's what those China Airlines A340 pilots were thinking when they took off from the Anchorage taxiway(not the runway) a few months ago...

they would have cleared the snow berm with higher-thrust engines, instead of the regular ones that came on their stock A340s....  Big grin


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6865 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2565 times:

I was fortunate enough to be able to experience a non-Flex T/O of an A340 with Kuwait Airways, not as dismal as Flex T/Os... Pretty comparable to other planes...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2508 times:

I read in AvWeek a couple years ago that Singapore Airlines 777 flying to Europe will arrive a about 20-30 before a Singapore Airlines A340 flying the same route.

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

The 340 IS underpowered compared to the 772 but there are obvious reasons for that.It was certainly fun to watch the Tahiti departure from CDG!

User currently offlineSunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 782 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

As a friend at FRA told me: The A340 is the only airliner with five APUs  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Can someone explain what FLEX thrust is?

Sunil


User currently offlineLanPeru From Peru, joined Jun 2001, 645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Yeah, I am wondering the same, what it 'flexthrust'?

Also, if the 772 IS faster, then how much faster would it fly a leg that takes 8h35m?


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...
SAA And The 777 Vs. A340. posted Wed Nov 7 2001 21:25:49 by CX747
How Much Longer Is The DC-9 Going To Be Used? posted Fri Apr 7 2000 22:27:25 by DeltaMD11
How Is The CO Vs Jetblue In EWR Going? posted Mon Feb 6 2006 14:51:50 by Nwab787techops
AF 777 Vs A340 - How Do They Decide? posted Sat Dec 31 2005 21:29:33 by Clickhappy
How Is The 777-300ER Performing In Service? posted Sun Aug 29 2004 20:18:29 by Raggi
How Thirsty Is The 777? posted Fri Sep 29 2000 19:53:26 by B737-700
777 Vrs 747 When Is The 777 Just Not Enough? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 02:55:54 by JAM747
How Far Along Is The DTW North Terminal Project? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 22:41:05 by 7E72004
How Much Has Underestimating The 787 Cost Airbus? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 16:50:10 by Art
How Much Longer Will The DL 732s Be In Service? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 04:29:30 by AviationAddict