Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why It Must Be Great To Fly On The A340  
User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6271 times:

For me, the best part of flying is immediately after departure. You're up in the air, but not so high that you can still admire the scenery below. On the 340, it seems you get to experience this for a longer period of time. A much longer period of time.

I've seen the LH 340 depart PHX a couple of times during the past week. Man, that thing really claws at the air. It's got it's nose pointed up, but she ain't climbing. Has Airbus ever thought about JATO for this turkey?

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcorde1518 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 746 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

So I guess there are GOOD points to having an aircraft powered on 4 APU's?  Yeah sure(I'm going to get flamed for that one Smile) I'm just kidding with ya, I agree!

 Smile


User currently offlineBells From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6183 times:

The A340-200/300, the only airliner that suffers bird strikes from the rear!

The aircraft that only climbs due to the earth's curvature etc etc etc


User currently offlineOE-LDA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6068 times:

Bells: Good jokes!

But aside from that, flying on the A340 is great, very smooth and comfortable. I flew on the A340 three times (ORD - VIE and IAD - VIE on OS, and ORD - FRA on LH), and I always loved it. I think its a great plane to fly on.

Regards, OE-LDA


User currently offlineJaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Before too many jokes are cracked about the climb performance lets remember that the new 500 and 600 models dont have that problem.

User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The -600's have the mega RR trent 500's, no shortage of horsepower there!  Big grin



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineAviastar From Belarus, joined Nov 2000, 280 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

TWAL1011, have you tried the Il-86?
You should.


User currently offlineAirbuspilot From Belgium, joined Apr 2000, 416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

Climbs slow ..............

watch this: http://www.airbus-lebourget.com/media/video_21.asp


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

Glad to see Airbus got their act together when they designed the A340-500/600 to put better high thrust engines like the RR Trent 500 instead of those small GE/SNECMA CFM56-5C hairdryers that are on the 200/300 models.

User currently offlineDeanBNE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5877 times:

Wasn't the A340 -200/300 wing designed with the failed IAE Superfan engine in mind? Not bad going for such a late, major design change.

Cheers,
Dean


User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

I don't see any problems with the A340. Sure they climb and cruise a bit slower, but the airlines buy them because they are economical, not gas guzzlers like the B744, which means they save money in the long term.

I do notice when this comes up (every week) that it's mostly American's or Boeing lovers that knock the A340. Can't stand the competition boys ???  Big grin

By the way, the A346 looked great taking off last night from LHR on it's first revenue flight, didn't climb slowly at all.  Big thumbs up



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5807 times:

Can't stand the competition boys ???

Sure, if it's a climbing competition.  Big grin


User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5790 times:

Whether you are Boeing or Airbus fan - comments made in jest are very welcome - love those jokes about the Airbus 340.

But does the extra wieght of the A340-600 offset the extra thrust advantage - also perhaps they delibrate de-rate the thrust to maximize fuel efficiency - these are not sporty cars but highly expensive to run machines!!


User currently offline0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5736 times:

Glad to see Airbus got their act together when they designed the A340-500/600 to put better high thrust engines like the RR Trent 500 instead of those small GE/SNECMA CFM56-5C hairdryers that are on the 200/300 models.

Hey, TEDSKI -

I see. Still you had no time to sign up for the Airliner Economics 101 course.
Y'a know, it's never too late.

Take care,

your friend, George


User currently offlineJesseycy From New Zealand, joined Aug 2001, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5643 times:

Hey, not all people like being on overpowered aircrafts... Not me, at least! There's nothing like the long roll during takeoff, and the elegance of crusing slowly up towards the clouds....

If you want the thrill of taking off fast, why don't you just take a roller coaster???????


User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5581 times:

I see that Jesseycy is a big fan of distinguishable scenery as well.

Still, I prefer the kick-in-the-pants performance of the 717 or 757 to low-level meandering.


User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

679 views, 2 stars, 15 replies.

No one wants to defend the 340?


User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5523 times:


I cant defend a the 340 as my plans to travel will not allow me to go on
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Garry Lewis

but how are the 340 sales figures when compared to the 777?



Eagles Soar!
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5521 times:

Climbs slow .............

Airbuspilot,

We're talking about the A342/3, not the A346, the A346 has way more powerful engines, therefore it doesn't climb nearly as slow as the A343.

I don't see any problems with the A340. Sure they climb and cruise a bit slower, but the airlines buy them because they are economical, not gas guzzlers like the B744, which means they save money in the long term.

The 744 is not a gas guzzler. I'm sick of people calling it that, when in fact, it's an extremely efficient aircraft, just like the A340. Also, slow climbers like the A340 are inefficient for awhile after takeoff, because they can't reach cruise altitude without a very slow climb or burning off gas at a lower altitude. The 777 and 747 do not have this problem, nor will the A346.

I do notice when this comes up (every week) that it's mostly American's or Boeing lovers that knock the A340. Can't stand the competition boys ???

Nobody's bashing the A340. It's a slow climber, that's a fact. Making a few jokes about that is not bashing the aircraft. You couldn't see the sarcasm in everybody's posts???

I don't know what's up your @$$ but please take it out....... Insane

BTW, can't stand competition?  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud



-NWA742


User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5499 times:

NWA742,

No I don't actually have anything up my A$$, of course I could see the sarcasm, hence my comment about the competition - seems like you can't stand it with your response  Crying

"The 744 is not a gas guzzler. I'm sick of people calling it that,"

We operate both the A340 and B744, and compared to the A340 the B744 does guzzle gas, alot more when operated on the same routes, which is what my point was about airlines buying them for economical reasons, as they are more interested in $$$'s than saving a few minutes in flight time.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40070 posts, RR: 74
Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5482 times:

Why is climb performance so important?
I'd love to fly on the A340 and I'll take a A340 over a 777 ANYDAY!
BTW, I am a Boeing fan saying this. I like 4 engine jets better than twins.

The A340 looks like a nice smooth riding aircraft that one could site back, have a Martini and look at the scenery during takeoff and enjoy the flight.

I've flown on 777 and yes the climb perforamance was steep but I didn't see the big deal.
I've also flown on an IL-62 which is not a fast climber but was a very smooth and enjoyable flight.




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5494 times:

The 744 does guzzle more gas than the A340, but it carries quite a bit more. You fail to bring in a lot more details of what efficiency and $$$ are all about, not just gas per mile. If you can provide me with factual data and figures saying that the 744 is an inefficient gas guzzler, then I'll believe you.

Also, why are you comparing the A340 with the 747? The A340 competes with the 777, not the 747. Comparing the A340 with the 777 is much more close than with the 747.

 Smile

 Insane



-NWA742


User currently offlineCopenhagenboy From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 599 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5484 times:

In comfort (mostly flying Y) I will always prefer the A340 (1. flight) over B744 (6 flights). Never tried but I assume over B777 too.

User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5391 times:

NWA742,

Was comparing B744 to A340 because they are the a/c types that the airline I work for operate, and also when A340 was first launced that was what it was competing against, as the 777 didn't exist at the time, and I never said it was an inefficient gas guzzler, just stating that it uses more fuel per pax than an A340 does, as isn't the A340 the most fuel efficient a/c per pax mile than any other ?.

Can't be bothered to get facts and figures, i'm sure you could find them on the net if you are that interested.

These discussions always end up slating (even in jest) the A340 'cos of the fact (that we all know), that the A340 climbs and cruises slower than a B744/777, and no-one ever seems to have anything positive to say about it.

Anyway, who really cares, all the a/c do what the designers intended, and if it get's me from A-B in 1 piece, then I couldn't care less what I fly on. I wouldn't take or not take a particular flight/airline just because of the a/c type they were using.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5367 times:

and I never said it was an inefficient gas guzzler

Actually you said it a few times.

just stating that it uses more fuel per pax than an A340 does

That's true, but you don't have a point. I can tell you that the Cessna 152 uses less fuel per passenger than a 737-200, but does that mean anything if I leave it at only that?

as isn't the A340 the most fuel efficient a/c per pax mile than any other

I believe it's the 777 in fact.



-NWA742


25 Mirrodie : I smell A vs B. brewing, so keep it real and don't start. Having said that, I've beena big Boeing fan for years but the A 330 and A 340 rock. After ha
26 Travellin'man : Takeoffs are GREAT on the A342 and A343!!! I have flown many times on every commercial aircraft currently flying, so I say this with confidence. It is
27 Leezyjet : I said it was a gas guzzler, not an INEFFICIENT gas guzzler, there is a differance.
28 Post contains links and images LanChileA340 : It's great to fly the A340-313X because it's so silent, efficient, spacious, elegant, functional and even though it may "seem to climb slowly" it actu
29 TEDSKI : Too bad when Airbus was designing the A340-200/300 models they did not make the wings strong enough to handle the PW2000 & RR RB211 series engines tha
30 Silverstreak : Dooods! This sounds more like Road and Track or Motor Trend! These are passenger planes - a lot of people are riding in the back! You want rapid accel
31 A388 : I've flown Air Portugal's A340-300. I didn't even notice we already took-off from Lisbon (I wasn't looking out the window at that point), I thaught we
32 Post contains images Aztec01 : Saw the LBG video...WOW! I'd like to see him do that with a full load of passengers. Please keep your hands in side the ride at all times! Do they cha
33 0A340 : Too bad when Airbus was designing the A340-200/300 models they did not make the wings strong enough to handle the PW2000 & RR RB211 series engines tha
34 Arsenal@LHR : Can someone give me a link or show where the A340 video is? thanks
35 Je89_w : I like the A340 a lot. I've flown on a TK A340 and I think it's perfectly fine.
36 Post contains images Solnabo : Why not take the shuttle? Now we´re talking climb God bless America and the toxic texan.........
37 Bells : TEDSKI, it's nothing to do with the strength of the A340-200/300 wing. The A340 actually needs a less strong wing than the A330, because having four e
38 A330 : Quite correct, Bells! The A340.200/300 is a very economical plane, and its climb performance is not all that bad, remember that airliners use derated
39 OO-AOG : As a passenger who cares about the climb rate of the A340?! TWAL1011, you'r right, the A340 is definately a great experience as a passenger! Can't wai
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...
What's It Like To Fly On The Airbus A380? posted Tue Sep 12 2006 13:43:09 by WINGS
Conviasa To Start Flight To MAD On The A340-300 posted Thu Jan 19 2006 03:16:49 by BA747
1,200 Euro To Fly On The CRJ700 In Y! posted Thu Jul 7 2005 14:32:03 by CRJ900
Would You Want To Fly On The A380? posted Sun Apr 4 2004 12:20:35 by Sammyhostie
Does Anyone Afraid To Fly On The Plane? posted Tue Jun 18 2002 04:44:28 by OZ222
Want To Fly Long Flights On The A340-500? posted Sun Feb 17 2002 22:36:55 by Airplanetire
I Want To Fly On A DC-10. Is It Possible? posted Thu May 4 2006 03:46:31 by Alfa75
Should The Mentally Ill Be Allowed To Fly? posted Fri Dec 9 2005 00:51:18 by Hmmmm...
Is This The SQ Raffles I Couldn't Wait To Fly On:( posted Fri Oct 14 2005 09:07:37 by Gokmengs
Is It Permitted, A Married Couple To Fly The A/C? posted Mon Jul 25 2005 09:43:11 by Emrecan