Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A330 X A340 Performance: South Atlantic Crossings  
User currently offlineMAUZAO From Brazil, joined Aug 2012, 24 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 20102 times:

On a recent review on AF447 loss published on the brazilian site jetsite.com.br, first official and co-pilot on the AF plane mentioned while entering the stormy area: "... é melhor estarem voando em um A330, pois este tem performance superior ao A340" (... that´s better to be flying on an A330, due it´s superior performance than the A-340).

What they meant? I always imagined that the A-340, for being bigger and having 4 engines, had a much better performance than an A-330. And I feel much more confortable, even safer, flying over the stormy South Atlantic, Brazil to Europe, on any A-340 or B-747-400 than on an A-330. Give me a LX , IB, LH or TP A-340 anytime over an CA, AF or JJ A-330 to Europe!!!

Any thoughts? Thanks.

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIndependence76 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 20061 times:

I can't entirely answer your question, but it would be ironic if it were true. The A340 program was originally marketed with the tagline of "If you're over the middle of the Pacific, you want to be in the middle of four engines."

(Also, by any chance, does anyone have the high-res version of that 2-page advertisement?)

Here:
http://boeingblogs.com/randy/images/stormy%20seas%20ad.jpg



"In general, pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes." - John Ruskin
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5841 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19901 times:

With all engines working, twins have more excess power than quads. I think that's all he meant.

User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19535 times:

One of the design drivers for engine size is one engine out takeoff at MTOW.

If a plane needs 90,000 of thrust to get off the runway in the case a quad engined plane could use (4) 30,000 thrust engines, because with one engine out you still have 90,000.

On a twin you would need (2) 90,000 thrust engines, so with one engine out you still have 90,000.

So in normal, day-to-day use the quad would have 120,000 thrust available and the twin would have 180,000 thrust (at sea level, but at altitude presumably the ratios would be the same).


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18992 times:

The overall reliability advantage of a 4-holer has nothing to do with thrust margin at cruise.

A340's climb performance at altitude is notoriously sluggish compared to, say, a 777. Of course, that's with all engines running: with one engine out the picture is rather different.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18490 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 4):
A340's climb performance at altitude is notoriously sluggish compared to, say, a 777. Of course, that's with all engines running: with one engine out the picture is rather different.

As far as I am aware, the A340-300 will reach a high initial operating altitude than a 777-200ER at max weight, and a A340-600 will climb about 4000 ft higher than a 777-300ER at max weight.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinedennys From France, joined May 2001, 900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16421 times:

Excuse me , but if i had the choice i would prefer crossing any oceans on a 4 jets aircraft !

User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2684 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16189 times:

Quoting dennys (Reply 6):
Excuse me , but if i had the choice i would prefer crossing any oceans on a 4 jets aircraft !

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're any safer than on a twin !

Twice the number of engines means twice as many things could go wrong with those engines.

Quoting zeke (Reply 5):
As far as I am aware, the A340-300 will reach a high initial operating altitude than a 777-200ER at max weight, and a A340-600 will climb about 4000 ft higher than a 777-300ER at max weight.

He's talking about climb performance (i.e rate of climb), not initial climb altitude.

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 833 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15668 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 7):
Twice the number of engines means twice as many things could go wrong with those engines.

Aaah here comes the point that has brought people to the edge of war for centuries  
Often times pilots / airlines / engeneers / pax / enthusiasts argue on what is the better solution. You have the "fail-safe" (redundancy) supporters in the one corner and you have the "damage-tolerant" (over-engeneering) geeks in the other. There are pilots which say that when one engine is out, you're better off still having three instead of one to carry you home. And then there are those who support your view and say "when one engine has a problem, and the other three are the exact same engine, then they might have the same problem". Who's right? I don't know, up to the individual to decide.
You can even extend the discussion onto other airplane structures, for example the school of thought promoting "fly-by-wire". There are those who say that when pullies and levers actuate flight controls, then the more you use those tools the more redundancy the system has, but the likelier it is that one failing component (eg. being stuck) corrupts the whole system.

Interesting topic nontheless, worth thinking about the quad vs. twin performance. It would be great though to know what is meant by "performance", as there are numerous subcategories where, depending on who you ask, a twin is better in the one and a quad better in the other aspect.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15635 times:

The A332 has more thrust and lower MTOW than the A343 that AF operate. That translates into much better climb performance. The A332 can achieve higher initial cruise altitude than the A343 can when operating near MTOW. However it all depends on the load and weather of a specific flight.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinetjcab From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15050 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 7):
Twice the number of engines means twice as many things could go wrong with those engines.

With that logic, then one engine should be the best solution.

Why the need for ETOPS then? If cost was not a factor, I would imagine most would prefer more engines.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5841 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 14195 times:

Quoting tjcab (Reply 10):
With that logic, then one engine should be the best solution.

There is a balance between redundancy and increasing probability of failure as you increase redundancy.

So far, real-world operational history of all types of aircraft seems to indicate that two engines strikes that balance better than any other number, provided the two-engine aircraft is operated to ETOPS standards.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My buddy started going to ATC school. One of the things they were instructed upon was that the A342/343 needed extra "time" to get off of the ground due to being underpowered on normal take off with the small CFM's. They were notorious for taking the "full" runway and their climb rates were sluggish at best. The couldn't climb out of cities fast or high enough, so that might be a factor for maneuverability at altitude.

As I said, this was what the ATC school was teaching future air traffic controllers.


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13295 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
So far, real-world operational history of all types of aircraft seems to indicate that two engines strikes that balance better than any other number, provided the two-engine aircraft is operated to ETOPS standards.

Respectfully, I beg to disagree.
There is no straight demonstration of that theory that I have seen since now, in mathematical or statistic sense.
First, the demonstration is weak because it is a "reverse" demonstration (A twin did not have a double independent engine failure so it is absolutely reliable), then the sample base is too small for both cases (independent multiple engine failures).
I suspect that the choice of ETOPS (to clarify what I mean: to authorize twins to cross large extents of water) was driven only by economics, and I better I do not go too in deep on how the may have worked.
So, in absence of straight theories I stay with my common sense. Better four than two, God forbids one.



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13117 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 7):

He's talking about climb performance (i.e rate of climb), not initial climb altitude.

That is not how I was reading the OP, getting to altitude to get over weather.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 9):
The A332 can achieve higher initial cruise altitude than the A343 can when operating near MTOW.

When the A330 and A340 are operated over the same route, with the same payload, the climb altitude would be the same, same wing. At MTOW the A340 is less than an A330 at MTOW, because it is 40+ tonnes heavier, nothing to do with the engine, it is still higher than a 777 at MTOW.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 12):
My buddy started going to ATC school. One of the things they were instructed upon was that the A342/343 needed extra "time" to get off of the ground due to being underpowered on normal take off with the small CFM's. They were notorious for taking the "full" runway and their climb rates were sluggish at best. The couldn't climb out of cities fast or high enough, so that might be a factor for maneuverability at altitude.

I sure hope that is not what they teach in ATC school. The A340 is NOT underpowered, every takeoff meets regulated performance, it is the exact opposite, it is overpowered, almost every takeoff is performed with less than full thrust. We normally do not use all the thrust available to save on longer term maintenance costs.

Yes an A340 does need more runway than a 737, it is also going a lot further. Even at max weight, I almost never need to use full thrust when departing from a sea level runway at max weight, when I do it is normally due to reported windshear.

A340s do not take the "full" runway, no aircraft does with all engines operating, and the climb rates and initial altitude are often better than a 744 when both are operated at MTOW. This sounds more like a fanboy, rather than someone in industry.

Everyone knows that long haul wide bodies use more runway, and do not have the rate of climb as a short haul twin, it is not rocket science. Most airports in the US however do not get to see regular departures at MTOW, most are short to medium haul flights.

What does effect our performance is that in some countries they do not let us accelerate above our minimum clean speed, the have speed restrictions of 250 kts below 10,000 ft. Heavyweight aircraft need to climb out closer to 300 kts to get their best climb performance.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 833 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13084 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 12):
The couldn't climb out of cities fast or high enough, so that might be a factor for maneuverability at altitude.

Not exactly sure what the one has to do with the other.

Yes the A340 uses a lot of runway, because if it was going for a larger flap setting for takeoff, then the climb performance would be even worse than it is, hence lower flaps for the TOR.
That said, I'm sure an A340 would never take off on a field where it would be performance limited, so it really doesn't matter whether it takes all the runway or just half of it, as long as it is able to take off. Even for an ATC it's not such a big difference whether a 777 or an A340 is departing. Wake turbulence category is the same, and even if an aircraft is holding short wanting to cross an active runway, it doesn't matter whether the a/c taking off has a TODR of 2000 or 4000 meters.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
There is a balance between redundancy and increasing probability of failure as you increase redundancy.

That's basically what I was trying to say with my previous comment.

Quoting tjcab (Reply 10):
Why the need for ETOPS then? If cost was not a factor, I would imagine most would prefer more engines.

If cost was not a factor, I'm sure ETOPS whould be the smallest of changes we'd see in the airline industry  



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
The A340 is NOT underpowered, every takeoff meets regulated performance, it is the exact opposite, it is overpowered, almost every takeoff is performed with less than full thrust.



I was specifically talking about the A342 and A343 (as i previously mentioned) NOT the A345/A346; I did NOT say the A340. The earlier ones were/are underpowered and there are plenty of pics on this site of them taking off at the END of the runways. [Along with several IL-96's] The A345/346 got the much needed engine upgrade to the frames and are much better capable acft. So, there's no need to be condescending (again) towards others that might know different things.

This quote from the pilots was what led me to this..."(... that´s better to be flying on an A330, due it´s superior performance than the A-340)."

Regards,
135Mech

[Edited 2012-08-22 14:15:52]

[Edited 2012-08-22 14:37:25]

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3845 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12145 times:

If I may digress from the monthly 4 vs. 2 engines debate, I'd like to offer that when you're about to enter a stormy area over the ocean in subtropical regions, you could well have 43 engines, it won't make a hint of a difference to your chances.

Let's not take everything that comes out of pilots' mouths for unchallengeable aviation facts... It's just cockpit talk.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Semaex (Reply 15):
Quoting 135mech (Reply 12):
The couldn't climb out of cities fast or high enough, so that might be a factor for maneuverability at altitude.

Not exactly sure what the one has to do with the other.



Well, the phrase/sentence was...
"The couldn't climb out of cities fast or high enough, so that might be a factor for maneuverability at altitude."

The second part of that was where the sentence was hinged on. At altitude, you may need your engines to "help" you get out of situations from weather, etc... if your engines are smaller and slower responding, you may not get out of that situation as easily or maybe not at all.

"(... that´s better to be flying on an A330, due it´s superior performance than the A-340)."

That was what that sentence (along with the entire post) was going towards.

Not trying to get under your feathers, just putting my two cents in and using my experiences to back them up.

[Edited for spelling]

Regards,
135Mech

[Edited 2012-08-22 14:14:12]

[Edited 2012-08-22 14:17:05]

User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):
If I may digress from the monthly 4 vs. 2 engines debate, I'd like to offer that when you're about to enter a stormy area over the ocean in subtropical regions, you could well have 43 engines, it won't make a hint of a difference to your chances.

Let's not take everything that comes out of pilots' mouths for unchallengeable aviation facts... It's just cockpit talk.



What stinks is the sad reality is we lost these lives, it's a very unfortunate thing!

[Edited 2012-08-22 14:27:35]

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11776 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
When the A330 and A340 are operated over the same route, with the same payload, the climb altitude would be the same, same wing. At MTOW the A340 is less than an A330 at MTOW, because it is 40+ tonnes heavier, nothing to do with the engine, it is still higher than a 777 at MTOW.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought climb rate depended more on thrust and efficient cruise altitude depended more on lift/wing. The A332 has a lower weight, but same life and wing as well as more thrust, so it will climb higher and faster.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):

I sure hope that is not what they teach in ATC school. The A340 is NOT underpowered, every takeoff meets regulated performance, it is the exact opposite, it is overpowered, almost every takeoff is performed with less than full thrust. We normally do not use all the thrust available to save on longer term maintenance costs.

I couldn't agree more that it is not under powered. That's a perception issue. However the A340 certainly has a lower climb rate than the 777 (which is common between twins and quads). If you look at JFK-JNB on the A346 and JFK-HKG on the 77W, the CX 77W averages 21 minutes to cruise whereas the A346 averages 33 minutes to cruise altitude. Both typically are filed at 31,000, so the slower climb rate of the A340 gives the impression of it being underpowered.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11280 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
The A340 is NOT underpowered, every takeoff meets regulated performance, it is the exact opposite, it is overpowered, almost every takeoff is performed with less than full thrust. We normally do not use all the thrust available to save on longer term maintenance costs.

It IS underpowered - when compared to normal ops on A330 (or 777). That does not mean it has not enough thrust that it needs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Yes an A340 does need more runway than a 737, it is also going a lot further.

It might also need more runway compared to a 777 that goes just as far, but that is irrelevant, as long as it goes off.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
This sounds more like a fanboy, rather than someone in industry.

I guess I could tell that about you. Nothing wrong about liking and defending your plane, but you can be realistic and accept other planes are better in some ways.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 15):
Not exactly sure what the one has to do with the other.

Think vertical manuevering. The reason you are climbing is excess thrust. A twin has more excess thrust than a quad.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 15):
That said, I'm sure an A340 would never take off on a field where it would be performance limited, so it really doesn't matter whether it takes all the runway or just half of it, as long as it is able to take off.

This does not, but this is tower controller.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 15):
Even for an ATC it's not such a big difference whether a 777 or an A340 is departing.

It can be for an approach or center controller. Lets say you route your arrivals under departure track 10 miles off the airport. Assuming normal departure, 777 will be quite a bit higher than the 340.
Similarly if you need an airplane cross perpendicular airway over such and such altitude for traffic separation, 777 will use less time and track to get up there than 340 (and subsequently you might need to keep the 340 under the airway, or vector for avoidance, or similar)



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinebuyantukhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2915 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11267 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 9):
That translates into much better climb performance.
Quoting MAUZAO (Thread starter):
And I feel much more confortable, even safer, flying over the stormy South Atlantic,

Unfortunately in this case, AF447 did still have excess thrust and could climb into a high-speed stall. Ironically, with a worse engine performance at altitude, the outcome might have been better.

While in this case the number of engines was irrelevant, the excess power worked against them here (albeit very very indirectly of course, ultimately the plane merely did what the pilots told it to do).



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 11221 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 5):
a A340-600 will climb about 4000 ft higher than a 777-300ER at max weight

IIRC the 346 has a service ceiling of about 41000 ft whether the 773ER has a MOA of 43100 ft. If you try climbing to 47000+ ft with your 346, wouldn't you be violating an Airplane Flight Manual operating limitation?

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
When the A330 and A340 are operated over the same route, with the same payload, the climb altitude would be the same, same wing

? 340-500 and -600 have almost 80 square meters more wing area than any 330.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
The A340 is NOT underpowered

I never claimed that.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
every takeoff meets regulated performance, it is the exact opposite, it is overpowered, almost every takeoff is performed with less than full thrust.

I'm relieved to hear this! Certification authorities must know what they are doing in handing out type certificates, after all... However, I was talking about climb performance at altitude, not at takoff.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
That is not how I was reading the OP, getting to altitude to get over weather.

There you have a point: I was talking about rate of climb, whereas the OP was probably thinking about maximum altitude. My bad.


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 11215 times:

Quoting MAUZAO (Thread starter):
On a recent review on AF447 loss published on the brazilian site jetsite.com.br, first official and co-pilot on the AF plane mentioned while entering the stormy area: "... é melhor estarem voando em um A330, pois este tem performance superior ao A340" (... that´s better to be flying on an A330, due it´s superior performance than the A-340).

It's very simple. The A343 and the A332 have the same wing, but the 332 has less structural weight, payload, and fuel, and is therefore lighter. Thus you get more low end margin on your coffin corner in the 332, which was already impacted on the warm night they had. Their computer calculated limit was FL375 IIRC, and it would have been lower in a heavier (for the same mission) 343.


25 rcair1 : And you can loose twice as many. It all balances out.
26 sharles : Except if one takes out the other. Having 4 engines also increases the probability of damage to other aircraft systems (as it increases the probabili
27 zeke : It should be easy for you to show me one then, unless the end you mean the end they commence the takeoff roll from !!! I fly both, and I do not find
28 Starlionblue : A common misconception. Sure, but there's no statistical or technical basis for your preference. Sure they do. But he should ask his instructors abou
29 Viscount724 : Since 2007, modified ETOPS rules have also applied to 3- and 4-engine aircraft. At least for the U.S. FAA, ETOPS now stands for "Extended Operations"
30 ricknroll : There has been more than one quad that went on to it's destination even though they had an engine out, a twin can't do that, (depending on where it w
31 B777LRF : It's all really very simple: Engines very rarely go wrong, whether operated under ETOPS standards or not. Thus the chances of actually loosing one are
32 thegeek : By that definition, isn't every aircraft overpowered? Would it be true to say that it is less overpowered than other aircraft?
33 Starlionblue : :D Getting into semantics I guess. But surely modern aircraft all have more power than necessary to do the job. In part this may be because derating
34 jollo : Looks like I'm unable to make myself clear, let me try again with a theoretical situation without any A vs. B strain: A330-300 vs. A340-300 (same win
35 Starlionblue : All other things being equal, the 330 would have more power, so would reach FL350 first. This is the nature of engine-out regs.
36 ferpe : There is a lot of flak spread over the A340 and especially over the A340-300. If I understand it right this is however one of the more economical on f
37 thegeek : Perhaps so, but the A340 wouldn't be too far behind it if they both started at the same weight. The A340 uses its one engine out advantage to haul mo
38 jollo : I think you're correct, but I don't know by how much: one would need the actual speed polars of both ac to quantify the difference. I'd also like to
39 Post contains images Starlionblue : I said "all other things being equal", meaning only engine power is different. Same MTOW in other words. With the same MTOW, the same wing and much m
40 Post contains images tom355uk : That's not exactly true is it?? The 4 x CFM56-5C's on most A340's have 34k each, whereas 2 x Trent 772's on an A330 have about 71k each, and that is
41 Post contains images ymincrement : I would prefeer being in the middle of 4 engine when crossing the ocean but it may be my psychological needabout safety.. but what you prefer when you
42 Post contains images Starlionblue : Oops. I guess I walked into that one. "All other things being equal"!!! Exactly. Yes, two engines can fail for unrelated reasons but it is so unlikel
43 thegeek : The only part untrue is the exaggeration "much".
44 atct : Im currently a radar controller and in my experience A340's are pigs. They dont speed up fast or climb fast. I liken them to the classic 747's (-100/
45 Starlionblue : Yes, they climb slower. But airlines care about economics, not sportscar performance.
46 Post contains links zeke : They would almost be identical. If anything the A340 might be a little better, the CFMs are a little more responsive for thrust changes, they would s
47 Post contains images B777LRF : Listen, we all know a 340 Classic doesn't leap very sprightly off the ground. Neither does a heavy 747 for that matter. But they are not under-powered
48 AirlineCritic : Obviously, people will want a powerful aircraft. How would we otherwise leave other aircraft standing still, when the light changes to green in an int
49 Post contains images Fabo : I believe you that is the truth when using TOGA. Now, a little mental excercise for FLEX takeoffs. Lets suppose the aircraft is go-limited (because b
50 zeke : Takeoff distances are all done OEI.
51 Fabo : Yes, but takeoff dont all happen that way. Therefore 777 will lift off sooner and would "use less runway" and "climb better" as apperaing to casual o
52 atct : I do facilitate traffic. When I see an A343 coming I can assure you that they get baby treatment. If its a choice between turning a 777 on course or a
53 zeke : That is the sort of attitude that costs the traveling public millions of dollars every year. Every airline tries to operate their aircraft with reduc
54 Post contains images Pihero : Super post and I can't agree more; The question is also : " How do you treat a loaded 747 ? "... The answer could be interesting.
55 atct : Efficiently is the word. I dont go out of my way to help out a slow climber, whether A343 or heavy 742, because that delays everyone else. Everything
56 ecbomberman : Why are there people always criticizing A343/2's performance? If they are that underpowered, they wouldn't have gained their FAA certificate. It seems
57 ecbomberman : Does 250kts under 10k apply in your situation? Would that have an impact on the climb rate?
58 Fabo : Geez, will some people learn to READ? NOWHERE was it said that A340 was dangerous, or underpowered IN REGARD TO REGULATIONS! Simply that it uses less
59 Post contains images ecbomberman : I think you've misunderstood me there and just reading part of what I wrote. What I mean is that all aircrafts are safe and that no insane aircraft m
60 Fabo : OF COURSE they would not. Why do people keep bringing it up then? The whole debate runs around quads being overperformed by twins in normal operation
61 Post contains images ecbomberman : I think both you and I have a common ground in that there is no UNDERPOWERED plane. People who say that do not possess true knowledge of aviation. Ye
62 zeke : The A340-300 has a 40+ t higher MTOW than an A330-300 for much the same thrust with the same wing. An A340-300 will out climb a a 744, and the A340-6
63 Post contains links ecbomberman : I would be intrigued to know the performance between a A332 and A343 doing HKG-CDG. Both are long haul flights and AF does occasionally send their A3
64 aerotech777 : I am not performance expert. But I thought that AEO (all engines operating) accelerate-stop distance is also part of takeoff performance and it is mo
65 Pihero : There is no such thing as an "accelerate-stop distance with all engines operating" in our performance considerations. ( why reject a takeoff when the
66 zeke : Yes it is, but I have never been out of an airport limited by that, only OEI. The rule says that the takeoff distance is the greater of the OEI to 35
67 aerotech777 : With all my respect to you, but may be you are not aware about accelerate-stop distance with all engines operating. You can reject a takeoff for a pr
68 Pihero : My bad. I was rushing to discuss your # 64 : In my experience, the ASD (N) is always less restrictive than ASD (N-1) - the all engine acceleration to
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A330 X A340 Performance: South Atlantic Crossings
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...
Easa Directive On A330/A340 Autopilot posted Wed Dec 29 2010 02:19:06 by AF2323
A330/A340 Crews; Cabin Defects. posted Mon Jun 4 2007 11:01:34 by SWISSER
A330/A340 Efficiency posted Thu Mar 29 2007 18:49:37 by Airbuster
Min Runway Take Off Lengths For A330,A340,777,787 posted Sat Sep 3 2005 00:01:05 by EI321
Atlantic Crossings posted Sat Oct 30 2004 21:17:25 by Rossyboy
A330/A340 Pilots posted Mon May 12 2003 01:37:40 by Macmac76
A330 Takeoff Performance posted Thu Jun 13 2002 19:55:15 by 762er
A330 / A340 Info Needed posted Mon May 20 2002 09:20:34 by SailorOrion
A330/A340 posted Thu Apr 12 2001 00:37:23 by DTW_Steve
A330/A340 Landing posted Sun Sep 3 2000 00:03:33 by CXA330-342

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format