Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13753 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3712 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)
Hardkor From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3394 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?
Red Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3362 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.
Boeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3263 times:
MR BAThe 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.
MD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3173 times:
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......