hkg_clk
Posts: 980
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 2:56 pm

Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 9:40 am

Many people (both on this forum and elsewhere) have said that the 340 has poor take-off performance. In particular, its take-off performance is worse than the 777, its main competitor. This is certainly true when all engines are fully operational. However, many have therefore criticised the 340 , and have also said that the A340 is unable to take-off at certain airports as the runway is relatively short (see for example the post regarding AF flying 340s to SXM).

However, isn't minimum take-off performance calculated on a 'one-engine-out' scenario? If that is the case, the minimum runway length required for a 777 should be that that is safe for it to take off with 1 engine only (i.e. 50% down on its normal power), whereas that for the 340 is for it to take off with 3 engines (25% down).

If this is correct, then wouldn't the 777 be subject to very stringent runway length restrictions? Taking off with one-engine would, I imagine, require a very long runway. On the other hand, for the 340, it may use up more runway for normal take-offs, but in an engine-out scenario, wouldn't the extra runway length needed be less?

Please correct me if I am wrong! Please note that I'm not saying that four engines is better than two or vice versa, but I'd like to know the practical operational differences when it comes to minimum runway length.

Thanks!
See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
 
Skystar
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 9:45 am

Hkg_clk,

I'll just say something.

An A340 with one engine out, is more powerful than a B777 with an engine out. Yes, even the heaviest A340-313X

Secondly, quad jets must also be able to make higher climb gradients than twin jets in this situation.

Cheers,

Justin
 
Guest

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:46 am

The problem with the A340 being underpowered on takeoff has been corrected in favor of the new A340-500/600 models that are powered by Rolls Royce Trent 500s.
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:55 am

The point of the post though is about the actual 343, not the 340 500/600. I have flown the A343 on AF a few times and I must say that I noticed that it felt underpowered "compared to the 777" but underpowered would suggest that it cannot do the job, which it clearly can. It doesnt climb like many others do. I would also say that an A343 with one engine out would obviously be more powerful than a 777 with one engine out, as you would have a 3 engine to 1 engine ratio...

A343 sure is quiet though

Jer
 
Skystar
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 11:03 am

Artsyman,

Logically a 343 with one engine out (so 3) would be more powerful than a 777 with one engine out (so 1).

However, the notion that when you lose an engine in a twin you have 100% of thrust, and then saying that when you lose an engine in a quad you have 100% thrust isn't quite true - because you're using different standards. ie. the 100%s are different.

Cheers,

Justin
 
flyDLjets
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2001 6:02 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 3:02 pm

Granted the A340 does have notably sluggish takeoff performance. But a factor that affects all aircraft is one, density altitude and also for jet aircraft how much the power has to be de-rated to avoid over temping which could lead to an engine fire. If you get a 100 degree day at SXM the engines on the already slightly underpowered 340 would have to be de-rated so much that takeoff from a 7,000 foot runway would be near impossible. This could also feasibly happen to any plane! If you go to A340.net there is a video of a LH 340 departing Phoenix Sky Harbor when it is around 90-100 degrees outside and the plane uses most of the 11,000 foot runway. But agian, we have to think, Air France knows better than most of us. Even if I am a pilot. But you'd have to think that loosing one on a derated takeoff run at SXM would be a hairy experience. Any 340 drivers out there who can give us performance advice?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 3:39 pm

I flew a CO 777 and an AF A340 within 2 weeks of eachother this past Christmas. The A340 climbs like a slug. It rotated off the runway, and hung there for about 5 seconds. The 777 just rocketed up into the sky.
 
Guest

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 3:58 pm

from FLIEGERMAGAZIN, Germany:

Radar: FranceAir 1234, Confirm are you an a320 or an a340

Pilot: an a340, of course

Radar: In this case, would you mind switching on the other two engines and giving me 1000 ft/min or more?
------------------------------------------------------

Heard in a Lufthansa Boeing 747-400 cockpit:

Have you heard about the birdstrike of the airbus 340? It happened over the north-atlantic. It was hit by the bird from behind!  Wink/being sarcastic



 
Guest

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 4:48 pm

An argument which I see time and time again on why the A340 has never sold in America is because American airports are on average at a higher altitude than their European counterparts.

I asked the following from this thread:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/685236

You may be right about DEN and SLC being high altitude hubs, but in all honesty, name me one route (single, non-stop) out of these 2 cities which would require an aircraft the size of and the range of the A340.

Someone mentioned that ATL is "high" altitude, but how does ATL compare to the following cities?

ATL - 313m
SCL - 474m (LAN-Chile - A340 operator)
AMM - 721m (Jordanian Govt - A340 operator)

Even DEN (1655m) and SLC (1288m) may be high altitude, but this high altitude argument holds absolutely no water when you look at the operations of the A340 in China.

China Southwest Airlines flies regularly between Chengdu (CTU) and Lhasa (LXA) using the A340. CTU is 507m above sea level. No much, but when you consider that LXA is 3,650m above sea level (more than double the altitude of both DEN and SLC) you can see why this "high altitude" argument has no credibility.


Can anyone comment on why the A340 is able to operate effectively out of Lhasa, but some think it isn't able to operate effectively out of American airports?

 
Skystar
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 5:35 pm

FlyDLjets,

The max derate temperature for the A340 is 55°C (effectively a 25% derate) - typical for the CFM56.

Generally speaking for large turbofans the max derate is 60°C.

I have to admit, if the runway is only 7000ft, the A340 will have to try very hard to get out. Then again, most large jets will have to. In any case, this will be pushing the limits of its performance.

The A340 is certified to takeoff & land up to 12,000ft.

Cheers,

Justin
 
Airbus_A340
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2000 8:41 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 7:24 pm

Wouldn't using more flaps for those "hot and high" locations for take-off solve any problem?

Trevor
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
 
airsicknessbag
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 8:45 pm

Exactly, Hkg_clk:

the 777 is over powered by 100% while the 340 is over powered by only 33% - because the necessary 100% calculation base is indeed the "1 engine out scenario". So quite naturally the 777 is more powerful than the 340 (as is any twin compared to a quad).
A trijet is over powered by 50 % etc.

Daniel Smile
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4270
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 8:57 pm

You should see Air Canada's A340's take off from YYC on a hot summer day, they use up pretty much all of the 12000+ft of runway 16/34. Quite an awesome site if you're at end the where rotation occurs.

YYC is 3500ft above sea level which is the main factor for this.

Regards,
Kris from YYC
 
hkg_clk
Posts: 980
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 2:56 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 9:21 pm

You say the 340 takes up pretty much all of the runway at YYC normally, but I'm sure it must be capable of taking off there even with an engine out, and that's all that's necessary.

The 777/767/A330 will most probably also take off no prob with one engine out there, but it will also probably take up all the runway, I assume?

Please correct me if this is not the case!
See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 9:22 pm

The A340 can be comfortably operated out of Lhasa because it is a relatively short flight and the plane is never being closed to fully loaded. It is a misuse of the aircraft. China Southwest was forced to get the three A340s when the Chinese authorities couldn't get the other three major Chinese carriers to have them.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 11:01 pm

It's not just take off, it's climb performance. SIA wanted to get rid of their A343s cos it took them FOREVER to climb to altitude on realitively short flights.

Once it's up there, it seems like it can go on forever, but its getting it up there that's the problem.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
777kicksass
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2000 9:52 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 11:17 pm

Airsicknessbag - THANKS for getting this straight! I have devoted much of my life to slating the a333s take off performance because it is dreadful. Yes it is within limitations but I think it loses any efficiency it claims to have over the 777 by taking most of the flight to reach cruising altitude!

Yes, the 777 is overpowered incase of an engine failure, moreso than the a330 dueto the engine numbers. I am glad to see Airbus has learnt their lesson and have some decent engines on the 500/600! Maybe a re-engining program for the a330-300? I suppose the smaller a330-200 has no such problems though.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 11:21 pm

I guess you mean the A340 and not the A330?

 
777kicksass
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2000 9:52 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sat Jan 19, 2002 11:30 pm

Oh yeah I meant the a340! Sorry!
 
flight152
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 2:20 am

Wouldn't using more flaps for those "hot and high" locations for take-off solve any problem?

No, it wouldn't. By adding an excess amount of flaps, you are also adding more drag, the drag which will make things worse, in this case the takeoff roll even longer. That is why you have to set flap settings to the manufacture settings and not 'play' see what happens if we try this.
 
Guest

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 2:30 am

What is GE/SNECMA doing with the CFM56-5C turbofan engine in the TECH56 project for the A340-200/300 models?
 
Tom_EDDF
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 8:47 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 4:27 am

777kickass:

I'd say using the A340 on shorthaul flights is of course inefficent, but also not the purpose it was designed for. And on a flight from, let's say FRA to HKG or SIN to SFO, climb performance and initial cruise altitude are not as crucial as on shorter routes.

Shorter routes should be operated by A330's, as far as airlines want to use the 330/340 family. The 333/332 have a much better t/o and climb performance than the quad, but are using engines quite different from the CFMs on the 340, which may lead into maintenance inefficency for airlines which are not using other CFM powered aircraft.

I was onboard of several A340 flights over the atlantic and as a passenger, I always felt safe and comfortable and didn't care about t/o performance. And the A340s cruise performance isn't that bad at all, optimum cruise speed @m.82 is quite above the 767, and I know several airlines operating the A340 at m.83 on some routes. Not to mention the A340s superior range capabilities.

However, I wondered why airbus did not offer the A340-300 with PW2000 engines...
 
Guest

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 4:37 am

If Airbus were to put PW2000 or RR RB211 series engines on the A340-200/300, they would have to make the wings stronger which would make the aircraft heavier and inefficient.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 7:19 am

Tom_eddf wrote:


Not to mention the A340s superior range capabilities.


Huh??? Superior to what? Last time I checked, the B772ER has at least 400 nm more range than the A340.
 
Tom_EDDF
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 8:47 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:48 am

Dynkrisolo:

Don't want to start an a vs. b war, but last time i checked the specs, the A340-213X (known as the A340-8000) had a range of 8000nm, more than any commercial airliner available today.

Older A340-200s (like the -311) are capable to fly 7450nm non stop, while the A340-313X fully loaded with passengers and baggage flies 7300nm.

The maximum range for the 777-200ER is, if i'm not wrong, 7150nm. Very close, but the 340 flies a bit farther.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Beside that, saying "superior" does not mean to compare the A340 to the 777 or A vs. B anytime, I even did not mention the 777 in my posting. By the way, there are other long range birds in the sky, like the 762/763ER, A332/3, some DC-10s, MD-11s and numerous 747s. And the A340 (as well as the 772ER, indeed) offer more range than most of them.
 
Contact_tower
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:54 am

From ATC point of view this is really simple:

2 engine jets climb much better then 4 engine.  Big thumbs up
 
Lufthansa404
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 7:21 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:54 am

A Lufthansa A340 captain once told me, that he can directly climb to FL390 or similar for example.
A B747 for some erason has to do a level off to burn some more fuel and continue the climb.
Dunno if its all true, but the A340 is a slow but steady climber.

Cheers

Jan
 
Ikarus
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:18 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 9:02 am

Note here: The frequently quoted engine-out scenario actually works like this:

Any passenger plane has to be capable of safe takeoff if an engine fails exactly at the decision velocity. This means all engines run until the decision velocity (is it V1? I always confuse them...) is reached. Then the plane has to be capable of rotating, climbing, and clearing a 50ft obstacle at the end of the runway. There might be some more climb rate criteria, but I don't know them by heart.

What does this mean for the 777/340? My best guess is this: The 777 accelerates more on the runway while both engines are running. This probably means it reaches the decision velocity with more runway to spare than an A340 has at its decision velocity. Therefore, if one engine fails, it still has more runway left to gain the speed it needs on the remaining engine's thrust. So to be fair, one would have to compare more than just the number of engines. I don't deny that the 777 probably has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. But I doubt it is as high as some people seem to indicate, if compared with the A340.

Regards

Ikarus
 
777-200
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 1:52 pm

When Sabena used to Fly A340's out of CVG they would take up most of CVG's 10,000 foot long runway 18L. It made me kind of Nervous! Wow! (CVG is about 950 foot above sea level)
Another Day, Another Dollar.... Young Jeezy
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 2:07 pm

340s regular do reduced-power takeoffs which are more economical and reduce engine wear and tear.
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Mislead

Sun Jan 20, 2002 2:20 pm

The one-engine out scenario is probably the driving factor for the relatively higher take-off power of a twin vs. the A340. However, there are probably many other issues involved that we, as casual observers, do not know. I suspect that the 4 engines on the 340 are not set to max. thrust during take-off (unless there is an emergency) so as to increase range and reduce fuel burn.

But the bottom line is that it still meets FAA/JAA requirements.

As for operating at high altitude airports, that is a challenge for all types of aircraft. Typically, all are limited in MTOW, particularly on hot days. I was once flying out of MEX bound for YVR (supposedly nonstop) on a DC-8-50, but since we had a full load, we could only take off with limited fuel and had to stop in Guadalejara to refuel.

As for lower initial cruising altitude, I have noticed on long flights, even on the 340, that the initial two hours or so are flown at FL280-FL290 or there-abouts.

But the 777 does seem like a hot rod compared to the 340 during take-off!

Cheers,
Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
Guest

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Sun Jan 20, 2002 3:19 pm

Something that may have been mentioned, but I missed is that ALL airplanes have three take off airspeeds noted (sometimes more).

I'll use an example below that will use these fabricated speeds:
V1 - 151 KIAS (takeoff decision speed)
Vr - 158 KIAS (Rotation speed)
V2 - 168 KIAS (takeoff safety speed)

V1, Vr, V2, normally they appear in that order as an aircraft accelerates down the runway, considering standard pressure, and temperature. The likelihood of an engine failing after V1 (take-off decision speed) is very slim. When above that speed, an engine fails, they will continue with the takeoff. If an engine failure occurs below V1 the aircraft will stop safely and taxi off. This phenomena is what makes required runway lengths so long. All turbine powered aircraft are required to calculated their required runway length as if they were to accelerate to lets say 145 KIAS (in this situation), and then have an engine failure at that speed, the aircraft MUST slow down and stop. This speed (145 KIAS) is a speed almost that of the landing aircraft. Where as if they had a failure above that V1 speed, let’s say 153 KIAS, the aircraft would almost be at rotation speed (Vr 158), and the residual power required to accelerate those extra 5 knots would be just as attainable from 3 engines as it would from one. Therefore it is not the two versus four engine argument that is the issue, the issue is of how well the aircraft can; A) accelerate to V1, and B) How well the aircraft can decelerate at maximum breaking, considering current runway (i.e. snow, rain etc)/atmospheric conditions. And that is how the flight crews calculate, and the aircraft manufacturers determine (per FAA, JAA, Transport Canada guidelines) the required runway length for turbine powered aircraft.

Safe Flying!
Cameron Korrect
 
El Al 001
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 1999 11:50 pm

RE:Lufthansa404

Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:40 pm

LH404,

Thats right, a year ago I took a night flight to JFK from TLV, the a/c was 744 (LY) and we were 100% full with maximum payload.
Until Vienna we were flying at FL280 (!) which is very low for such a flight, but when we were over America we were flying at FL390, now thats a different!

Michael
 
Guest

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 12:40 am

Hopefully with this TECH56 project GE/SNECMA is working on will boost the thrust of the CFM56-5C engine to close to 40,000lbs, which will help the A340-200/300 climb better during takeoff with a full load.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:48 am

Tom_eddf:

Find me an airline that has ordered the A340-8000. Airbus has not sold a single one of them to an airline customer. Then obviously its "superior" range is not of interest to any airline. The A340-800 is in a different class from the B772ER and A343.

Also, your info on the B772ER is wrong. The B772ER's range is up to 7,730nm. Why don't you check Boeing's website?
 
Continental
Posts: 5222
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 3:46 am

RE: My Experience

Mon Jan 21, 2002 7:59 am

I was on a Lufthansa Airlines A340-300 twice in 2001. I have to tell you, the A340 has such a GREAT climb, it is truely spectacular! It climbed very fast, and was extrememly smooth both leaving Chicago and leaving Frankfurt! Truely amazing, probably some of the best takeoffs ever! (Though the most amazing was in 2000, when the Sun Country Airlines 727 captain literally scraped the back part of the aircraft on the ground during rotation!)

Continental
 
Guest

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 8:42 am

Climb performance is very different than takeoff performance. Other limitations control climb, which do not limit takeoff.

Cameron
 
TK
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:41 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 9:22 am

I have to say this, but as a passenger, I don't care what kind of takeoff/climb performance the A340-300 has, to me and to many pilots I've met, it is a brilliant plane. The statement about it taking most of its flight to get to cruising altitude is BS. Its takeoff is smooth, its climb is steady, it rides through turbulance well, its long-legged and its cabin comfort is superior in all classes. With my already great experience on the A340-300, I just can't imagine what the A340-500/600's are going to be like.
 
andrej
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 8:31 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 11:42 am

Hello TK,

Well said!! I agree with You.

I am affraid that most of the people criticising the A340 take-off performance, do not realize that most of the Take-offs are done by TO FLEX. Which means, that the engine uses only necessary power to take off (safely). Thus the engine life is extended. That's why A340 takes "long" time to lift off, than B777 or other a/c.

In my opinion, A343X is fantastic airplane.

With the best regards,

Andrej Lippay

Sorry, for any grammar mistake, however English is not my 1st langauge.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8024
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 12:59 pm

All I can say is that the takeoff roll of the A340-300 reminds of a 747-400 takeoff roll fully loaded--it takes a long roll down the runway even in the right wind conditions.

I should know--I've seen SQ's A343 takeoff on Runway 28R at SFO and it takes a lot of runway. Compare that to a 777-200ER takeoff roll on the same runway and the plane completes it takeoff roll in 20-23% less runway length (this is based on watching UA, KE and NH 772ER's takeoff on Runway 28R).
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 1:22 pm


My question is why NOT to use the whole runway to take
off? If a B777 can take off, let's say with 20-25% less
runway length than an A340, why not to set the thrust
lower on the B777 and use the same runway length as the
A340? Less use of the engines to save costs.

Janos
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 1:40 pm

Sigh! To say the A343E is a fantastic plane is like to say the B764ER is a fantastic plane. Well, airlines aren't buying too many of them.
 
andrej
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 8:31 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 1:52 pm

Hi Dynkrisolo,

more than 300 costumers had ordered A340, and about 250 is A343X(E) So the plane is sucessful in its class  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
But You can not say that about B764, b/c much less costumers had ordered it, than B763 or B762. Than again, it is new addition to that family.

Anyways, I think that A340 is good quality plane, and some of the forum members under-estimate its qualites, because they are not aware of some facts about A340!

With the best regards,

Andrej Lippay
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:13 pm

Although I admit that saying the A340 is as slow-selling as the 767-400ER is a bit drastic, when compared to the respective competition, the comparision is very valid. Currently, the A330-200 vs. 767-400ER battle looks like this:

A330-200: 230
767-400ER: 40

That's a difference of an amazing 190 frames. Now compare the current sales of the A340-300 and the 777-200ER:

A340-300: 207
777-200ER: 397

Surprise!! That's the exact same difference. 190 aircraft.


Tom_eddf,

"The maximum range for the 777-200ER is, if i'm not wrong, 7150nm."

You actually are wrong. The max. range for the 777-200ER is 7,730nm, besting the A340-300X's range by 430nm.

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
B-HOP
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 8:09 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 7:40 pm

AS a passenger, i don't care about how long it takes to FL350 as long as we got there, last year, i have a chat with a SIA 744 Captain in London, he said the crew love 340 and SIA choose 340 is more do with the nice package Boeing is offering. A virgin 340 pilot who converted from 742 said the climb are very similar.

Range were based in more factors than crude numbers, such as temperature at cruise and take off, wind speed etc, 7730miles are probaly done at a optium condition.

I like both 777/340 and i flew them both.

Regards
kev
Live life to max!!!
 
dragogoalie
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:58 pm

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 9:19 pm

Without looking at any numbers or any other facts, relying on only my expierences while plane spotting, the A340 does rotate and climb "like a slug" and is definately outperformed by the 777. I specifically remember one day when I was spotting in Munich. I saw a Lufthansa A340 take off. It used the entire length of the runway, and even then barely got off the runway. Next in line to take off was a UAL 777. It took only about 2/3rds of the runway and roated/climbed a lot better than the 340. I have also seen the 340 be outperformed on takeoff at Narita by A330's, 777's, and 747.

--dragogoalie-#88--

Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:00 pm

Andrej:

Remember the number that Hamlet69 posted for the A340 includes three years of sales before the B777 was launched. In the first few years of marketing the B777, most of the sales were for the baseline model. If you compare the sales of the A340 and B777 sales after 1996 when both the A343E and B772ER have entered into service, the difference is a lot more dramatic than the number posted by Hamlet69.
 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:08 pm

Dynkrisolo

Yes but unfortunately, Hamlet69 hasn't speak of the A330-300 that is indeed a competitor of the 777. So you have to add the +115 A330-300 buildt and delivered...now the difference is a little less dramatic isn't?  Laugh out loud
Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
James768
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 11:26 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:32 pm

The way I see it....

All engines work during takeoff - you survive in the 777 and 340
One engine fails at a critical time during takeoff - you survive in the 777 and 340
Two engines fail at a critical time on takeoff - you die on the 777 and you (probably) die on the 340 ('tho maybe a four-engine plane can take off with two engines down in some circumstances???)

So assuming the same quality of maintenance, engine reliability etc isn't the 340 marginally safer? However given the fact that the ends of runways at airports aren't littered with the debris of planes that 'didn't quite make it into the air' surely this is rather negligible?

So long as they get me up in the air and down again, the rate of climb is irrelevant to me.

I do know about the long takeoff roll on a 340 tho - I took a Virgin one from Johannesburg (altitude ???) to LHR - we were on the ground for so long I thought we were going by road back to London.

Jimmy
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Comments On A340 Takeoff Performance - Misleading?

Tue Jan 22, 2002 6:01 am

Johannesburg is a long way above sea level and is also very hot which results in draining the engines' power. It often takes Virgin 70 seconds to take off from JNB with a fully loaden 343!Also have to leave non-urgent freight behind too.Currently the 744 is on this run.
Alex

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos