Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Do A345s And A346s Use So Much Runways Length  
User currently offlinedennys From France, joined May 2001, 867 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5474 times:

It is amazing seeing an A340-500 or -600 using so much runway's length to take off for such midium hauls like CDG-DOH or CDG-AUH ! A 772 flying CDG-SGN takes less runway 's lenght to get airborne .
Any comments will be welcome

dennys

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5402 times:

The one engine out requirement need to be regarded.
The twin must achieve its V1 earlier (in terms of distance) to have enough reserves if an engine fails at/after V1.
The quad loses only 25% of thrust, therefore acceleration is less compromised in case of engine out.

Therefore, quads can usually chose a lower thrust setting (engine de-rate). Another issue can be 2nd segment climb. That is, an obstacle in the flight path might reduce the Take-Off Distance Available for the twin, as his second segment climb with one engine failed is smaller.
This take-off performance considerations might really ruin the day of performance engineers.

And actual aircraft loading is hard to guess: for example cargo weight.

And consequently: when no engine fails the twin will lift off earlier.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5290 times:

The derated takeoff thrust feature is standard on Airbus longhaul aircraft, they introduced it twins too.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdf...nced_Reduced_Thrust_At_Takeoff.pdf


User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5217 times:

On the subject of A340's, why do the climb out at 140 knots? They are a flying road block below 4000.


"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5122 times:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 1):
And consequently: when no engine fails the twin will lift off earlier.

You certainly see massive take off performance when a B777-312/ER cranks its engines all the way up for a proper takeoff. YSSY has a pretty decent length 34L runway, and the B777-300/ER needs little more than a quarter of that.

The derate/flex doesn't give you a good example of what the A340/A380 can really do.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5488 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5025 times:

The 340 is sound, well-crafted and safe. It does make me chuckle, though, when I fly on it and observe that it is climbing more slowly than I climb in my Bonanza...


...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4924 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 5):
The 340 is sound, well-crafted and safe. It does make me chuckle, though, when I fly on it and observe that it is climbing more slowly than I climb in my Bonanza...

The A340-300 has similar wing area as the A330, but a 40t higher MTOW. Its initial climb climb rate isn't too sporty indeed, while the time-to-climb to ICA is about 29 minutes. In the end, the A340-300 is in no way worse than a fully loaded B747-400. I think the A340 is more often used at maximum payload.
A closer look at those issues reveals that twins also have some disadvantages.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4542 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 2):
The derated takeoff thrust feature is standard on Airbus longhaul aircraft

It's standard on all current Boeing aircraft too, and has been for some time.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 5):
The 340 is sound, well-crafted and safe. It does make me chuckle, though, when I fly on it and observe that it is climbing more slowly than I climb in my Bonanza...

The A340 is oddly well-suited to long-haul, more so that most of its contemporaries...as a result:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 6):
In the end, the A340-300 is in no way worse than a fully loaded B747-400. I think the A340 is more often used at maximum payload.

Exactly. Any fully loaded (commercial) long-haul quad climbs like a dog. It's just that the A340 ends up being fully loaded more of the time than some of the other examples.

Tom.


User currently offlineairportugal310 From Palau, joined Apr 2004, 3579 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

Some really informative posts in this thread. Learned a few things here!

Quoting sccutler (Reply 5):
The 340 is sound, well-crafted and safe. It does make me chuckle, though, when I fly on it and observe that it is climbing more slowly than I climb in my Bonanza...

Indeed - witnessed this one time sitting in the back of a TP A340 out of LIS one hot Summer day...climbing gingerly over the outskirts of Lisboa



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3895 times:

One reason might be ... but that is just a guess ... that the used CFM56-5C engines were pushed hard to deliver the take-off thrust. The Max Climb thrust setting might then be smaller compared to TOGA-thrust. Usually the difference between TOGA and MaxClimb is about 5%. If you increase this distance you may save engine life, but climb performance will suffer.
As the used CFM56-5C are rated at close to 36klbs that might be an issue.
Depending on the runway characteristics the take-off thrust may be de-rated quite a bit. An A340-300 on a 3400m runway with some headwind will have plenty of runway.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3797 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):

The A340 is oddly well-suited to long-haul,

That was the purpose of the 340 variant in the 330/340 family. Common wing and fuselage with one long to ultra haul (340( and one medium to long haul (330). Airbus' idea of making a common twin/quad family was inspired, and much cheaper than developing two separate aircraft.

The idea was that the 340 would become more efficient with increasing distance, and it does. And there are still things that quads do better, for example hot and high airports.

While many nowadays poo-poo the 340 as inferior to the 777, it still gives sterling service to first rate airlines. For example CX uses the 340 on many routes, and they also fly 777s. One advantage of the 340 is that it leverages CXs investment in 330s, with common pilot pool and much common maintenance.

Undoubtedly the 777 is superior in capabilities, but it came along several years later. The 777 could not have been built when the 340 was. Conversely, if 777-class engines had been on the drawing board 8-10 years earlier, the 340 might not have come into being.

[Edited 2010-10-09 19:18:58]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSpeedbird741 From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 6):
In the end, the A340-300 is in no way worse than a fully loaded B747-400. I think the A340 is more often used at maximum payload.

Another curious thing about the A340, is how they always climb to a higher altitude at MTOW than an 747 or 777 at MTOW. A fully loaded 747 is sometimes stuck at 28 or 29 thousand feet for its initial stage of the cruise while an A340 can go up to 34 thousand or more! Quite interesting.


Speedbird741



Boa noite Faro, Air Portugal 257 climbing flight level 340
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

The A340 is one generation newer in wing design.
The wing loading is a bit lower than on the B747[-400 and before].
And drag is slightly lower.
Finally, the B747 has a lower maximum lift coefficient of buffet onset.
We must remember that the B747 is 1960ies heritage. A great design in many respects, but aerodynamics did see some progress. And the B747 was designed for higher Mach numbers (up to M.89), which resulted in some different design decisions.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Do A345s And A346s Use So Much Runways Length
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...
Why DL 77L Use So Much Runway On The LAX-ATL Route posted Sat Mar 13 2010 12:33:03 by 747400sp
Why Do Military Aircraft Use UHF And Not VHF? posted Fri Jun 6 2008 11:07:13 by N353SK
Why Do UA's 777's Smoke So Much? posted Mon Jan 8 2007 08:59:23 by DeltaJet757
Position And Hold? Why Do We Use This? posted Thu Mar 2 2006 21:07:30 by Alias1024
Why Do Cargo Airlines Like The MD-11 So Much? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 12:09:49 by Mozart
Why Do Some Planes Divert And Others Don't? posted Sun Jun 6 2010 18:15:30 by KLM672
Why Do All 3 Major NYC Airports Have Runways 4/22? posted Fri Mar 30 2007 05:38:19 by CoolGuy
Why Do Airports Have Both 3 And 4 Letter Codes? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 00:28:23 by AirPacific747
Why Do Older RB 211 Start Up So Loud posted Sun Aug 24 2003 05:01:02 by 747400sp
Why's This Runway Displaced So Much? posted Tue Jan 28 2003 00:17:57 by Mr Spaceman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format