Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340-300 Underpowered.....?  
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24926 posts, RR: 56
Posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8142 times:

I think not!
Look at this Air Jamaica A340-300 climbing out of MAN, I think its proof to all the A340 cynics (including me in the past), that the A340-300 is no way underpowered  Big thumbs up

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Garry Lewis




When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8084 times:

Yeah you should watch PIA's 742's and 743's at MAN, frightening stuff!

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8072 times:

I think the issue is not so much on take-off, but that it can't reach cruising altitude quickly with full payload. Or rather, as quickly as the 772 or 744.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!


Can I allege that there might not have been a big load of passengers? One of the services in the middle of June had a whopping 58 passengers on board. I do hope that the service has become more popular.

David


User currently offlineMD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1330 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8076 times:

GKirk. Your picture proves nothing. Not a thing. Even a 727 will leap off the ground when it is lightedly loaded. The 340 is a slow climber and eats up tons of runway during takeoff. This is just a characteristic of the airplane. It doesn't mean it is a bad airplane. It obviously fits the needs of many airlines. I think it is similar to the venerable 727. Underpowered, but with many other redeeming qualities.

User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!


My best memory is of Aer Lingus 747 EI-BED almost running out of runway when taking off circa 1982. Best take-off I've heard about was done by a Learjet that reached 3,500 feet over Tatton Park.

David


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24926 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8058 times:

David, yes that could be true. Have any of the MAN JM services been completly full or are they not doing too great. What about the BWIA flights?

MD88Captain, thanks for biting my head off  Yeah sure



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineBobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8046 times:

A340 underpowered? I don't think China Airlines A340 pilots will agree with that statement...  Big grin

(especially the ones who took off from a taxiway at Anchorage)


User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8045 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

BWIA were reported to have got off to a good start according to their director of sales for the UK & Ireland.

As for Air Jamaica, I haven't heard too much of how good/bad a start it's had. With these services starting, the Manchester Evening News did a little piece and mentioned that highly loaded flight.

Presumably the bank holiday would have seen the flights full or nearly full (some 210,000 passengers were expected over the three day period on 1700 flights).

David


User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8003 times:

The A340-300 can't be underpowered otherwise it wouldn't be flying today. It wouldn't even be certified!

User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7979 times:

Doesn't prove anything.
It could be empty.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7985 times:

All four-engined aircraft are going to have inferior climb performance compared to twinjets, for the simple reason that they EXIST to have a worse power-weight ratio.

All aircraft are certified and operated on the assumption that they will lose an engine. In a twinjet, this means you lose 50% of your thrust, and all remaining thrust is asymetrical. So when you *don't* lose an engine you have lots of power available.

In a four engine aircraft, losing an engine means only losing 25% thrust and half the thrust on one side. That's significantly more engine-out performance; therefore, a four engined aircraft can take off significantly heavier even if the net thrust with all four engines working is the same.

Steve


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7870 times:

This past Sunday I was on a World Airways MD-11 that was fully loaded, and this thing with three 62,000lb thrust PW4000 series engines had a fast takeoff roll and lifted off the runway very quickly with the same angle as the A340-300 in the picture, and reached cruising altitude within a few minutes. The A340-300 needs engines with thrust of around 40,000lbs to help it climb better.

User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5025 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7867 times:

I'll take OA340's role here for a minute:

TEDSKI, how about that Airliner Economics 101 class? Still didn't get around to it, I see...


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7858 times:

Instead of arguing, why not provide some simple thrust to weight ratios?

From the web page, I selected the heaviest version of each type along w/ the max thrust option for that subtype...

A340-500
MGTOW 804700 lbs; 4 Trent 553s at 53k thrust ea = .2635

A340-300
MGTOW 608300 lbs; 4 CFM 56 at 34k thrust ea = .2236

A340-200
MGTOW 606300 lbs; 4 CFM 56 at 34k thrust ea = .2243

B747-400
MGTOW 875000 lbs; 4 P&W 4063s at 63.3k thrust ea = .2894

ERJ (145)
MGTOW 48500 lbs; 2 A3007 at 7.4k thrust ea = .3052

B757-200
MGTOW 255000 lbs; 2 P&W 2040s at 40.1k thrust ea = .3145

Climb performance is a function of excess thrust. The A340-300 has the lowest thrust to weight ratio in the A340 family. The A340 family in particular has low thrust loadings in comparison to other contemporary jet transports. The A340-300 is a poor climber, and the numbers reflect this. And has been stated, if one watches enough takeoffs, the A340's poorer climb performance is visually apparent.

cheers-


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7829 times:

If an A340 takes off using full T/O rather than Flex T/O mode, it can produce some "normal" take off displays like the pic above...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7800 times:

You must not understand the math or the definitions...

The thrust/weight ratios I provided are max thrust, max weight. For a light a/c, that type of deck angle is typical.


User currently offlineSkystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7757 times:

Tedski wrote that a full MD-11 reached cruising altitude within a few minutes. A few minute is about 3 to 4 minutes. Given a typical lowerish cruising altitude of FL310, that means you'd be climbing at almost 8000fpm - sorry credibility goes on this one.

Not bloody possible in my books, empty plane or full one.

Sllevin,

You're generally right, but there are a few exceptions - eg. compare the 346 with a few 332s and some 777s.

Also remember that the climb performance of a quadjet is superior to that of a twin in an engine out situation - it has to be:

Quads 3.0% climb gradient
Twins: 2.4% climb gradient.

Cheers,

Justin


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7729 times:

There was an article about Singapore Airlines fleet plans a couple of years ago in AV Week. In the article it was mentioned that a 777 leaving the same as a A340 on the Singapore-London route will arrive 30 minutes earlier.

User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7716 times:

I think not!
Look at this Air Jamaica A340-300 climbing out of MAN, I think its proof to all the A340 cynics (including me in the past), that the A340-300 is no way underpowered


Take a look at this...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt



B4e-Forever New Frontiers


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7721 times:

If an A340 takes off using full T/O rather than Flex T/O mode, it can produce some "normal" take off displays like the pic above...

Most takeoffs by any type are not maximum power.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7724 times:

I've seen AF and SQ A340-300's take off from Runway 28R at SFO.

Talk about a runway hogger and slow climber! The A343's from what I saw use as much runway as a 747-400 on the takeoff roll and the climb rate is definitely leisurely compared against even a full-loaded 744 after takeoff. Small wonder why SQ pilots expressed concern about the A343 being unable to dodge the poor weather over the Bay of Bengal on flights to Europe from SIN.


User currently offlineKaiTakFan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 7716 times:

EssentialPowr,Thank you for actually making an intelligent post and using the mathematical facts instead of opinions. Nothing more needs to be said. The facts have been layed out. Opinions are useless in this discussion. Its a shame there wasn't a pic of the 747-400 I was on going from ORD-HKG. Pretty damn heavy load, hot day in Chicago. The take off roll pushed a minute long and we were slow to get alt. If people see this take place then can it be said the 747-400 is now under powered? I think not! Atmopsherical conditions and weights can work wonders in cases like this. A steep climb out pic compared to facts... I wonder who is correct here?!?

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7534 times:

I didn't keep track of the time the MD-11 took to reach it's cruising altitude, so I shouldn't have said in a few minutes, but it was quick with the power the three PW4000 series engines had of 62,000lbs. This aircraft was not a slow climber.

User currently offlineHardkor From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7476 times:

Would an A340 be more at risk for an accident if the plane blows an engine during takeoff compared to other wide bodied aircraft?

25 Mandala499 : No because it'll loose only 25% of it's thrust, which means 25% of the reverse thrust too ! Mandala499
26 Rick767 : Mandala499 Reverse thrust is not taken into account in the calculations for a normal rejected takeoff (Accelerate-Stop Distance Calculations). Main re
27 Post contains images Mandala499 : Did I say it was taken into account in the RTO & runway length requirement calcs ?
28 Rick767 : In what other way would it have an effect on the stopping distance in a RTO situation?
29 Post contains links and images EGGD : B4e - it works both ways: View Large View MediumPhoto © STUART PRINCE I believe both aircraft were heavily loaded at the time. I don't think its
30 Boeing4ever : As opposed to a twinjet that can lift off a runway faster with only two engines? Kinda like 777 or A330 eh? hmmmmmmm B4e-Forever New Frontiers
31 Francoflier : Hi all, Numbers have proved the 340's to be slow climbers, but as EGGD mentionned, it does the exact same job with the same safety as a "sport-twin" o
32 EssentialPowr : I'd rather have the higher thrust to weight ratio capability (ie higher installed thrust) and simply not use it as often as opposed to wanting more th
33 Marcus : If an A340 takes off using full T/O rather than Flex T/O mode, it can produce some "normal" take off displays like the pic above... ******************
34 Beefmoney : Marcus, "Flex" is a notch in the throttle that most Airbus pilots use for a normal takeoff. There is Full/max power and lower down on the throttle is
35 TEDSKI : What the A340-300 needs is to have it's wings re-designed to handle the weight of the PW2000 & RR RB211 series used on the Boeing 757 with thrust of a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A340-300 Underpowered.....?
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...
Which A/c Burns Alot Of Fuel B747-400 Or A340-300? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 00:41:40 by AirCanada014
A340-300 Question? Regarding Throttle. posted Sun Apr 11 2004 18:44:31 by Jkw777
Dimensions Of The A340-200/ 300 Nacelle posted Fri Apr 7 2006 14:23:04 by Archischmidt
A340-600 Flare Vs 300/200 posted Tue Dec 13 2005 17:08:22 by CTRL_ALT_DEL
LH A-300/A340-200 Routes To Eastern U.S posted Wed Mar 7 2001 22:53:00 by ATA L1011
Continental 737-300 Cockpit Question posted Fri Nov 24 2006 08:26:31 by Artsyman
A-340-200/300-Type Reversers posted Fri Nov 10 2006 21:47:29 by Blackbird
A340-600 Why No Body Gear Steering? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:16:18 by BALandorLivery
Differences In AC's 767-300? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 02:11:19 by ZBBYLW
Air Tahiti Nui A340 C-Checks posted Fri Oct 27 2006 03:41:34 by Corsair2

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format