Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rate Of Climb: A333 Vs A343  
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4749 times:

While there have been many comments (aka. "jokes") about the A343´s moderate rate of climb (when carrying a good load), I was wondering how the A333 (no specific engine manufacturer) compares to this.
The comparison should be for similar loads of course ...  Smile

Can anybody shed some light onto this, please ?
Thanks in advance,
HT


Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

This should be searchable in this forum archives.

The basic truth is that all transport category jet performance is based on the supposed loss of ONE engine. For four-holers like the A-340 that means that it must have enough thrust to survive the loss of 25% of its total thrust. A two-engine jet must have enough thrust to survive the loss of 50% of its total thrust.

Logic will tell you that with these rules in place any given 2-engine aircraft will have more power than any given four-engine one of similar weight and wing loading.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3934 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

Well, the A343 has a thrust/weight ratio at max take-off weight of (4*31,200/573,200lb=) 0,218.

For the standard A333 this is (2*64,000/467,380=) 0,274
and for the long-range model it's (2*73,000/478,400=) 0,305.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17027 posts, RR: 67
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4676 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 1):
This should be searchable in this forum archives.

Understatement of the year Big grin


As SlamClick further explains, if you have a theoretical two holer and four holer who are identical in every respect except the number of engines, the two holer would need at least 50% more thrust This assumes that the four holer has the minimum thrust needed.

The "math": Assume a four holer has engines which each put out 100 units. If it loses an engine, it will have 300 units of thrust. Therefore the equivalent two holer also needs 300 units of thrust if it loses an engine. Ergo, the two holer has 2 engines rated at 300 units of thrust. So it has a total of 600 units, which is 50% more than the four holer (which has 400 units).

Now, if all those engines are turning, the two holer obviously has better performance.

And in the real world it's a bit more complex  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4615 times:

It has been said that the A343 only climbs with the curvature of the earth and is the only aircraft to have ever suffered a birdstrike from behind...

 Wink

The A343 is a slow climber, the A346 however... Thats a real skyrocket when they need it to be...!



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineAbirdA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 290 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4573 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
and is the only aircraft to have ever suffered a birdstrike from behind...

Nothing technical to add here, but it took me a respectable amount of time to compose myself enough to write this response, after reading that gem.


User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2254 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4543 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
It has been said that the A343 only climbs with the curvature of the earth and is the only aircraft to have ever suffered a birdstrike from behind...

Haha, if you do a search I think you will find I said the same thing, in fact, word for word a few months ago on another A340 topic.

NZ1


User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4512 times:

@ various:
Be assured, that I DID try to find an answer in the archives (as I sometimes recommend this to other A.netters, I´m really not the person to create a new post w/o having searched the archives), but as always the problem is to put in the right phrases to search for.
Also I`m familiar with the "one enigne out" scenario.


Coming back to the technical aspects in standard operations:
Is the extra power that the A333 has over the A343 actually used (at least to some extend) in order to reach cruising altitude faster than on a comparable A343 ?
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4493 times:

Quoting HT (Reply 7):
Is the extra power that the A333 has over the A343 actually used (at least to some extend) in order to reach cruising altitude faster than on a comparable A343

It would be hard not to... The 343 is a slow climber, there is definatly no doubt in that fact... however i love flying that aircraft. Its so quiet and smooth... As a passenger thats all i care about... infact, aircraft that skyrocket are uncomfortable because a sudden pressure change hurts my ears and all the bouncing around does nothing for my stomach contents.



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4492 times:

Quoting HT (Thread starter):
Can anybody shed some light onto this, please ?

I made a bit of effort in putting reply 8 in RE: Why Small Engines On A340-200/300? (by Zeke Oct 24 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2400332, should help with your question.

Quoting HT (Reply 7):
Is the extra power that the A333 has over the A343 actually used (at least to some extend) in order to reach cruising altitude faster than on a comparable A343 ?

333 normally a lot lighter than a 343, one on the many reasons it climbs better, along with more excess thrust.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17027 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4486 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
the only aircraft to have ever suffered a birdstrike from behind...

LOL. Well I've also heard this about the early Citations.

Quoting HT (Reply 7):
Is the extra power that the A333 has over the A343 actually used (at least to some extend) in order to reach cruising altitude faster than on a comparable A343 ?

Probably. It's economically sound to reach cruising altitude faster. But on a long hauler it probably doesn't have as huge a relative impact on total economics as on a short hauler because such a large proportion of flying time is at cruise.

[Edited 2006-01-09 14:06:41]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4464 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
I made a bit of effort in putting reply 8 in RE: Why Small Engines On A340-200/300? (by Zeke Oct 24 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2400332, should help with your question.

Zeke, Many thanks for that link and your detailed explanation in there !
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4819 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4002 times:

Control: "Aircraft ABC, please confirm type, are you an A330 or 340 sir?"
Captain (rather snooty): "hrrm we are an A340!"
Control: "Fine then, could you please switch on your other 2 engines and give us a decent rate of climb!" Big grin

The engines on an A346 are huge! (compared to other 4 holers)



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Rate Of Climb: A333 Vs A343
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Calculation Of Rate Of Climb posted Wed Mar 22 2006 00:30:19 by Jetflyer
Rate Of Climb Versus Angle Of Climb posted Wed Feb 23 2005 16:13:58 by Kiwiineurope
Rate Of Climb posted Sun Jun 6 2004 09:38:15 by KBUF737
Positive Rate Of Climb Or Run Out Of Runway posted Sun Aug 26 2001 17:11:52 by Western727
Rate Of Climb posted Fri Sep 29 2000 23:04:32 by Ar747
B744 High Rate Of Descent posted Sat Apr 2 2005 13:57:56 by SevenHeavy
Opt. Cost Of ATR 72 VS Dash 84 posted Sun Dec 19 2004 00:00:56 by AirbusCanada
Take-off Rolls And Rate Of Acceleration? posted Sat Nov 22 2003 22:13:28 by Wardialer
Efficiency Of Non-stop Vs. 1 Or 2 Stop Flights posted Fri Oct 17 2003 18:23:59 by StarG
Rate Of Acceleration During Ground Roll For B747 posted Mon Jul 22 2002 22:30:38 by Wardialer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format