AC330
Topic Author
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 4:20 am

Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:36 am

I have only flown the Airbus 340 twice.The first time was from Toronto to London Heathrow and the second time was from Heathrow to Calgary, both on Air Canada. I found that on both flights the take off seemed very sluggish as though the airplane was really struggling to climb on takeoff. It seemed do be a very slow climb. Has anybody else noticed this?? I am sure that being fully loaded with people, fuel and cargo plays a big role. What have your A340 takeoffs been like?? Both of my flights were on the 340-300 series. Does it feel the same way on the newer 340-500 and 600 series???

AC330
 
elal106
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2000 1:50 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:43 am

hey AC330,

People had told me this before and I experienced the same as you mentioned on my VS A340-300 flight last summer!! Flying a 744 on the way back showed how powerful she was compared to the a340 on takeoff...or at least it felt like it!
 
AC330
Topic Author
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 4:20 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:53 am

It is really amazing because I have never experienced that feeling on the 747 either...it seems very powerfull and climbs much faster on takeoff. Even the A330 feels much more powerfull on takeoff than the 340.

AC330
 
HlywdCatft
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:21 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:53 am

Heh, this is a weekly discussed topic about the A340's take off.

How does an A340 take off? It uses the curvature of the earth.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:20 pm

Even the A330 feels much more powerfull on takeoff than the 340

Why wouldnt it? Being a modern twin, it's naturally going to have a significantly higher power-to-weight ratio....
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ROP
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 3:46 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:47 pm

however i love A340 becoz it's much more quiet than 747...better deep sleep..
 
noelg
Posts: 2313
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 11:39 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 5:20 pm

I have only flown once on an A330, on AC from YYZ-LHR. I noticed the take off seemed very sluggish, but put it down to the pilot being gentle with the throttles. It felt exactly the same on the AC 762, 763 and A320 I have flown on as well.

Maybe their pilots are a just a little gentler on the throttle than other airlines?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

If you want real acceleration, I've not found anything to beat the BAE 146! Real back of seat stuff, and climb rate is absolutely astonishing! Big grin

But I suppose Concorde would win every time (if I had the money!)

Noel.  Big thumbs up
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 5:56 pm

You do tend to trundle down the runway in an A340, but the aircraft has plenty of power and it's perfectly safe. It's a consequence of its super-efficient design coupled with long range.

In fact, those clever people at "The World's Favourite Aircraft Manufacturer"TM even designed a special take-off setting that's deliberately lethargic, to save even more fuel and wear and tear on the aircraft.
 
LH526
Crew
Posts: 1960
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2000 2:23 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:27 pm

As much as I like the A340 in general (Gracious, great cabin, ..), so much I hate the take-off performance (especially during FLEX-takeoffs).
It was when I went off to Sao Paulo earlier this year on LH502, our climb out was so flat I thought we would make it back to the airport because of a problem or failure, compared to the B744 used on LH526 to SCL (a simmilar route) the B744 had much more power and a much higher climb rate.

Mario
LH526
Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:55 pm

NoelG it's funny you should mention the BA-146, as this aircraft type is not really renound for it's how should i say it, "performance". I've never flown on one of these(i want to though) but from what i've heard it's a slug, both in terms of cruising speed and rate of climb. I sure like the look of those little babies though  Smile Regarding the A340's sluggish takeoff performance i'd say that it comes down to the Flex takeoff. Airlines probably dictate a low power setting for takeoff to save the engines. The A340-600 should be on par with a 747's takeoff(from a pax's point of view) with those 4 enormous turbofans.
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:33 pm

Here we go again.....

1. The A 340-200/300 are sufficiently powered to operate safely within all requirements given by the regulations otherwise there wouldn be any granted type-certificates. Period!
2. If an airline really wants to save on maintenance costs without compromising on safety, they rather use the flex takeoff feature (I haven't heard from airports that charge less tax if you only use half of the runway to takeoff....) and by doing that save a substantial amount of money due to the lower engine deterioration.

Also, when you buy an airline ticket, you basically pay the airline to bring you from A to B safe and sound, but as far as I know, the general terms of transportatio doesn't include anything like a "guaranteed astonishing takeoff performance".... If you want to have this astonishing acceleration feeling, save the money for an airticket but rather buy a rollercoaster ride!!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Cheers, Thomas
 
User avatar
ERJ135
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 4:04 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:05 pm

Of course no two planes are exactly alike in performance but it must be remembered that the A340 was originally designed to use those ultra high by pass engines and was directed at economical operation above out right speed.
Take the wing for example, it is very wide for the size of aircraft and considerable less sweep than say a 747 which was built for speed.

Many people dislike and even hate the airbus aircraft for no other reason than the fact it isn't made by Boeing. So in short no it doesn't climb like an f14 because it wasn't designed to, it will however take off and fly very well to where ever the company wants to fly it just as it was always intended to do.
I remember when the DC-3 was new!
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:20 pm

ERJ135,

I could not have said it better! Hope you don't mind that I added you on my respected users list!!

Cheers and G'day, Thomas
 
lijnden
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:34 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:31 pm

I have flown only once on the A340 from Mauritius to CDG on Air Mauritius and I found the take off to be long and the climb very slow. Also the speed was only around 820 km/h and the altitude was not higher than 34000 ft. I had the feeling that this was all done to fly economical.
Be kind to animals! Next trip: ORF-ORD-NRT-IAH-ORF
 
ZSSNC
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 6:33 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:26 pm

As for your question about the takeoff performance of the A340-600. It is really good, not at all comparable to the sluggish takeoff performance of the older A340 models. The plane seems to climb with the same pitch as a 747, at least. As for the takeoff performance of the BAe 146: I found it sluggish too. And when on a 50 minute flight the pilot told us about 30 minutes into the flight that we had now reached our cruising altitude of 16000 feet you can imagine how the climb performance of the BAe 146 is. But perhaps that is just my feeling as I am used to flying with "stronger" aircrafts.

ZSSNC
Airbus A340-600 - the longest temptation in the sky
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:43 am

"Also, when you buy an airline ticket, you basically pay the airline to bring you from A to B safe and sound, but as far as I know, the general terms of transportation doesn't include anything like a "guaranteed astonishing takeoff performance"...."

LOL !! Couldn't have said it better.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:58 am

In terms of the A340-500 and -600 vs. the A340-300, its the difference between night and day.

The -500 and -600 take off like spaceships.

N
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:01 am


In terms of the A340-500 and -600 vs. the A340-300, its the difference between night and day.

The -500 and -600 take off like spaceships.


That's called learning from their past mistakes. Airbus has learned from it. Unfortunately, many people still don't want to believe it and insist the -300 has good climb performance.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:27 am

The 340-300 was issued a type certificate. Big deal. In the regard that it takes too long to reach cruise altitude, one can fairly say it is underpowered. The 747-100 was also underpowered airplane in that regard even though the FAA issued a type-certificate. In the GA world, I hear you want to avoid flying the Diamond Katana from high airports because it is 'underpowered' despite getting through type certification.
 
crank
Posts: 1524
Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 11:42 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:35 am

I haven't been on an A340 yet, but I have been on an A330-300, and it's da bomb! we used no more than 5000 feet of the runway and the plane was full, and it was a trans-atlantic flight. I really like this plane, hopefully when I'll fly on an A340 I'll get the same impression.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:44 am

As for the -500 and -600, are their FLEX takeoffs similar to those of the -200 and -300? That could probably preserve the engines even better, considering that even less of the engines' performance would be needed.

And to all those who don't like FLEX takeoffs: it's done for economic reasons, so it saves your money.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 2:46 am

FLEX takeoffs are available across the Airbus product line, I believe, and they work mostly the same.

Its the same thing as taking off with derated power on a Boeing.

N
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 2:51 am

What I meant to ask is whether the -500 and -600 will use FLEX to an extent that will make them use as much runway as the -200 and -300. I could see the point of that being reducing engine wear even more, but reaching VR after a shorter part of the runway would mean slightly increased safety.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 3:18 am

Aloges:- Yes... FLEX take offs are like using up as much runway length as possible with less thrust possible calculating elevation, temperature, runway condition. V speeds etc... Feel free to correct me though.
 
Tom_EDDF
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 8:47 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 3:52 am

The thrust-reduction trough flex-takeoff is limited, depending on certain conditions, to an amount of roughly 25%. That is achieved by using a temperature setting higher than the actual outside air temperture, i.e. 30 to 50 degrees C.

The more powerful aircraft will therefore use less runway than the less powerful, and that's the reason behind the phenomenon that an A330 or 345 will use less runway even using the same FLEX technique like the A343.

Correct me if i'm wrong  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
Stratofish
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:38 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 4:08 am

Apart from that FLEX talk: I have so far flown on the A340 -200 and 300.
I can confirm that the 343 take off felt sluggish, but we didn´t use all of the runway available (just about 70% of the runway at CDG - cant remember which one though and it was a ORD bound flight).

The A342 take off however was truly amazing when I flew JFK-BRU, we went off like a rocket.
The Metro might be the Sub(optimal)way
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 4:09 am

The A340-200/300 has an excellent safety record and performs to spec.'s. But it will always be a slow climber when compared to many other a/c. Getting from point A to point B isn't the point here. . .of course it performs safely and does it's job well. But it is a slow climber, period.

By the way, I like slow climbs, they remind me of 732s, DC-9s, and a multiple of other a/c, most of them older, but I don't care. If I want a fast climb, I'll hop on a 777 or a CRJ.

DIA

Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 4:50 am

Who cares if they climb slowly ?
Really, that's not the point.

It's the same with people who insist to have a 150+ hp car. A car in normal use, is made to go from a point to another in good conditions, with comfort if possible and safely. What's the point to go at 200 km/h except for the fun to break the laws ?

An airliner is definitely not made for those kind of people, especially when the airliner is intended to be sober in fuel.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 5:05 am

It matters to airlines when the slower climb of the 343 causes operational inconveniences for other aircraft. Airlines complained to Airbus. Airbus listened and corrected the problem on the 345/6. That's why the 345/6 engine thrust increased disproportionally relative to its take-off weight increase.
 
archie
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2000 7:58 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 5:15 am

Hi,

I flew on the A340-300 on April (Iberia) from ORD to MAD.
Take off roll was pretty slow, but I liked it anyway. I also flew on the 767-300 (AeroMexico) from MAD to MEX, the feeling was not that different. I guess it depends on load factor, temp. runway etc.

I do like the power on the 737-800 the 757 and the MD80.

Regards,
Archie
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:29 pm

I have on my hardrive a video clip shot by Jhooper, and he is filming the take-off of an L-1011 from hawaii from his window. I have watched it many times. That plane kept going and going and going until you would have sworn it would never leave the ground. I was actually a little freaked out watching it. The L-1011 is not a bad performer but under the right conditions, the performance you experienced on that A340 can be shared with other passengers on other planes.

L-1011 take-off

An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
flyingbronco05
Posts: 3484
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:28 pm

The A340 has a reputation for being a horrible climber.

FB05

Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:36 pm

It's too bad you weren't taking off out of Calgary.

On a hot day, plus with Calgary at 3500ft above sea level the A340 is a dog. It chews up most of the 12000+ foot runway! I swear one day it's going to clip a light pole or something, lol.
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:37 pm

Hmmmmmm

Well that 1011 was having a bad day. My firts flight on the 340 was in May. The cabin is really quiet so much so that if ound when the wheel well was opened u noticed the difference in noise. The take off performance however was dreadful. It was sluggish and made the old 20 year old L1011 BWIA operated seemed like rockets. This was perpetuated by the time it took to reach cruise.

I dont like that quiet though, that was confirmed when I caught a 738 6 days later.
Eagles Soar!
 
AndrewAir
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 2:08 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 2:04 pm

I flew on a CX A340, SFO to HKG, and on the return flight an 744 last summer. It being only my second time on a A340 I also thought the takeoff was sluggish. While on the 744 you can really feel the power unlike the A340.



.

[Edited 2003-06-20 07:04:39]

[Edited 2003-06-20 07:05:27]
 
TK
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:41 am

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 3:40 pm

I love the A340-300's takeoff and climb. It's smooth, quiet and graceful- exactly the way air travel should be. The A340 provides the most comfortable long-haul travel today...anyone who knocks the A340 obviously doesn't know any better. It's like the difference between a muscle-car and a E-class Mercedes-Benz for a long road trip, which one would you go for?
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: Take Off On An A340

Fri Jun 20, 2003 4:12 pm

The Bae-146 does indeed have poor climb performance. But it can get airborne quickly and its initial pitch angle is very impressive indeed - when the pilot sets the right flaps and flies the right speeds. It is a good airplane for short runways with steep approaches and departures. At SWISS it is flown into Lugano occasionally.

But after a time the climb performance falls off considerably. I once flew jumpseat on a flight to Brussels from ZHR. We were full and climbed to FL310. At the end the climb rate was just 500 feet per minute. And the indicated airspeed was nothing spectacular. So they did not trade rate for speed. They had neither.

The wing is a fat wing made for lifting off on the short runways, but it is not a high speed, high altitude wing.

Regarding the A340, it will be interesting to see it in ZRH. I remember Cathay had shallow take-offs when they used to come here.

But to all those who complain about the performance, it is calulated to perform within the limits of safety even if it loses an engine. So far the A340 has an excellent safety record, despite its perceived sluggish performance. Remember, this airplane was optimised for cost and efficiency and the accountants who run airlines don't really care about "kick in the ass" acceleration.

The 340 will represent significant fuel savings over the MD-11 it is replacing. And this is what can make or break an airline.
smrtrthnu

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, Alexa [Bot], alski, CM767, fry530, JeremyB, Kilopond, KLDC10, LAH1, Menzenski, msycajun, SCQ83, ssteve, thijs025, tjh8402, Wingtips56, Yahoo [Bot], ZKLOU and 262 guests