LY777
Topic Author
Posts: 2269
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:29 pm

The A340-300 has always had a bad reputation during turbulences.Now, I would like to know how the A340-500 and 600 ride during turbulences?Do we feel less turbulence on a 600 than on a 300?
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:31 pm

I've read this on other threads but haven't flown the A340 series to make a claim for myself. How/why would this be possible?!


777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
Halibut
Posts: 943
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:43 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:44 pm

Quoting 777fan (Reply 1):
I've read this on other threads but haven't flown the A340 series to make a claim for myself. How/why would this be possible?!

I am , by no means an aviation expert . However , I have read on a commercial pilot's blog or web page , that the Boeing 777 just has firmer -stronger or stiffer wings than its counterpart . He said he prefers piloting the 777 for that reason .

Halibut
6 million Jews were slaughtered-Do you see Jews flying planes into buildings in Germany to kill 1000s of innocent, NO !
 
User avatar
ThrottleHold
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:18 pm

I've found both the A330 and A340 to be pretty reasonable in turbulence. The 747 Classic though is a complete dog in even light chop.
 
LY777
Topic Author
Posts: 2269
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:26 pm

On the contrary,I think that the 747 Classics tend to be smooth during turbulences.
In 1995, I had an AWFUL flight on an AF A340-300, and now, I always try to avoid the A343.However, I would like to try the A346 (I would like to fly LH A346) on condition that it rides better than the A343 during turbulences

[Edited 2006-08-04 12:43:25]
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
ReverseThrust
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 8:24 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:44 pm

I've had some very bumpy rides in turbulence on both a Swissair A330 and a Qatar A330 - but nothing really notable when I've flown the 747 (Classic) and nothing on a Sri Lankan Airlines A340-300

The A300-600 can be quite bad in turbulence as can most airbus aircraft. But even recently, sitting in row 1 of a BMI A320 from LPA-EMA, we had some pretty rough turbulence for about 45 minutes, we couldn't go any higher to avoid it though due to heavy traffic flow on the route.

On the other hand, a ride on the 757-300 was very smooth in a short patch of turbulence we had on a flight from STR-SSH.

Reverse.

[Edited 2006-08-04 12:53:48]

[Edited 2006-08-04 12:54:30]
Flown MD11/81/82/83/87/90,B732/733/734/735/737W/738/739/742/752/753,F70/100,A300/319/320/321/332/333/343,TU134A/154M,L10
 
LY777
Topic Author
Posts: 2269
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:52 pm

Quoting ReverseThrust (Reply 5):
The A300-600 can be quite bad in turbulence if you're sitting at the back,

Anyway, if the turbulences are severe, you will feel them in the whole plane!!!
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
alphonze
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:08 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:04 pm

All these differing opinions show one thing, I think, and that is that unless you ride two different planes through the same patch of turbulence, it's really hard to be objective in deciding whether any one make/model is worse or better than any other.

The worst turbulence I've experienced was in a VS A343 from HKG to LHR, but I have no idea what that same turbulence would have felt like in a 346, or a 744, or an MD-11. It may have been just as bad. I've also had horribly bumpy flights in 773s, A320s and 757s. Having said that, some of the smoothest flights I've taken have also been in A343s.

It seems odd to say that a rough turbulence experience in an A343 was because of the aeroplane, on the basis that other flights in 777s were smoother. Surely the simplest explanation would be that the turbulence wasn't so severe on the smoother flight?!
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:10 pm

Quoting Halibut (Reply 2):
Boeing 777 just has firmer -stronger or stiffer wings than its counterpart

That should be bad rather than good, as less stiff wings dampen the vibrations.
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
Barbro
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:40 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:28 pm

Quoting Alphonze (Reply 7):
It seems odd to say that a rough turbulence experience in an A343 was because of the aeroplane, on the basis that other flights in 777s were smoother. Surely the simplest explanation would be that the turbulence wasn't so severe on the smoother flight?!

I agree. Its like judging a car suspension by driving one car on asphalt and another on gravel. How do you compare??!?

Also, the stiffness of the wing is an odd thing. Wouldn't you think that a "more flexible" wing will dampen the smaller vibrations.

Off course, speed has got something to do with these things also. And where you sit on the plane, for example B747 is known to make very low-frequency oscillations during cruise, that can only be felt at the back.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:07 pm

What is the point of this thread?

There were not/are not/will not be 2 identical instances of turbulence for anyone to make any meaningful comparisons. How do you know if this bumpiness is due to a bigger turbulence in the air or the aircraft reacting differently? There is no way you can measure the magnitude of turbulence up in the air.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:33 pm

I've flown twice on a A346 to South Africa, and was seated both times in the back of the plane and still slept like a baby. On the other hand I flew a couple of times over the Atlantic in AF's 773 and it felt much more uncomfortable, once in the back it was not possible to sleep as the aircraft was shaking extremely hard horizontally.
So from my humble experience, the T7 feels much worse in flight than the A346...
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
 
FLALEFTY
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:04 pm

A big, clean wing will produce the smoothest rides. The A330, 767 and 777 all have them and are the most comfortable rides IMHO.

That being said, a plane has yet to be invented that can completely overcome the effects of rough air.
 
GVWOW
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:09 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:12 pm

The most turbulent flight I've been on was a BA 747-300, but I've always found McDonnell Douglas aircrafts more turbulent than Airbus.
 
TUSflyer
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:44 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:27 pm

Isn't this topic completely subjective? Everyone has different tolerances to turbulence. While I may think a flight is smooth, the person sitting next to me is gripping the seat for dear life....

I fly for business at least twice a week and firmly believe that you become desensitized to any issues in flight versus someone that flys once or twice a year.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:31 pm

Quoting GVWOW (Reply 13):
The most turbulent flight I've been on was a BA 747-300, but I've always found McDonnell Douglas aircrafts more turbulent than Airbus.

I've flown a lot of flights on 737s, 757s, DC-9's/MD-80s, and A320's from the midwest to the west coast. There can pretty much consistently be expected to be turbulance over the Rockies, and what I've found is this:

The A319/A320 is probably the most comfortable of the 4 to fly on in smooth air, since it is quiet, and serene to fly in. Crossing the rockies though, it seems to get tossed around more. The MD-80s likewise are pretty easily tossed about. In my opinion, the 737-800s i've flown on are the best through the bad weather. The 757s are decent, but not great in chop, and in my opinion, can be fairly loud.

In terms of widebodies, I've always had smooth flights in the 763ER's across the pond, despite their modest size. I have to say the 744 has a definite feeling of isolation when you're flying in it. Even when it's bad, it's not as harsh feeling.

But that's just my seat of the pants feeling. My flight in an A333 was smooth as well, so I have no bad opinions there.

I would assume an A343 and A346, sharing much of the same wing design, would be similar, though it would go to reason an A346's additional weight would serve to dampen lighter chop.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
comet4b
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:04 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:34 pm

I have a question not totally related to turbulence.On a recent flight to z from MEXon a MExicana a319 I suddenly became aware of a very gentle oscillation of the plane along the longitudinal axis.I only noticed it because I was looking out at the horizon.I have flown quite a bit over the years and can honestly say I have never seen this before.Can someone please explain this to me .
Thanks
 
captaink
Posts: 3987
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:43 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting TUSflyer (Reply 14):
Isn't this topic completely subjective? Everyone has different tolerances to turbulence. While I may think a flight is smooth, the person sitting next to me is gripping the seat for dear life....

I fly for business at least twice a week and firmly believe that you become desensitized to any issues in flight versus someone that flys once or twice a year.

I was about to say this. Added to fact that the same turbulent air wouldn't be present on all flights. The 777 may give a smoother ride that the 346 but it just happened that on this day the 777 rider went through some extremly turbulent air, but his return flight on the 346 the turbulent air wasn't that bad. We can't truly deduce tha the 346 is the better flying plane.
There is something special about planes....
 
Tancrede
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:25 am

Quoting Comet4b (Reply 16):
I have a question not totally related to turbulence.On a recent flight to z from MEXon a MExicana a319 I suddenly became aware of a very gentle oscillation of the plane along the longitudinal axis.I only noticed it because I was looking out at the horizon.I have flown quite a bit over the years and can honestly say I have never seen this before.Can someone please explain this to me .
Thanks

That's right, I experienced the same with a Finnair A320. It was not very fun, I think, worse than turbulences. But no idea about what it is.
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:32 am

This is an extremely subjective topic, but for what it's worth, I've always noticed on 747 classics a slight 'wagging' side-to-side when seated in the rear section (where I travel the most) in anything from light turbulence and up. I've noticed this on 747s many times between several aircraft, different carriers and lots of flights. Not much to do on long haul sometimes I guess...

Generally, I find Airbus a/c to ride slightly smoother (although sometimes it will depend where I'm sitting) than in a Boeing. I believe this is due to the Boeing airfoil sections and wings being more suited to higher mach numbers and having a generally 'stiffer' wing construction. Having said that, it wouldn't deter me from travelling in any particular aircraft, apart from the triple 7. The 777 seems to have a horrible ride in turbulence - but I've only flown in one maybe a dozen times on long haul and it was hard to pin down - I just find it an very unpleasant aircraft for comfort in whatever configuration.

I've flown in A340s through the tropics many times and actually like the way they handle the rougher air at altitude, it's sort of a gentler sensation and usually sends me to sleep.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:49 am

I can tell you without a doubt what the worst aircraft is in turbelance. The Saab 340......

The general concenus i believe is that the 777 rides well in turbulence, but everyone has their own opinions on that. The bulk of my turbelance experience being on narrowbodies, I have to say the A320 is bad in hard chop, whereas the 737NG's tend not to feel so jarring. I've always thought that while the 757s never felt like they got tossed around as violently, they did seem to be very easily bumped. 757s over the rockies are bumpy, whereas A320s can be very calm, and then hit an ugly patch and be pretty scary.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
truant
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:14 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:06 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 20):
I can tell you without a doubt what the worst aircraft is in turbelance. The Saab 340

  

And in my opinion, closely followed by the ERJ-145. I never get ill on planes, but came close in November 2000 on a COEX ERJ-145 (IAH-HRL) flying through the usual Texas late fall soup.

Also had a wicked run in similar weather in a TWA 717 (STL-AUS) in March 2001.

As to whether this is a subjective thread (asphalt versus gravel), of course it is.

However, I also believe this thread is not pointless.

There are categories of turbulence reporting based upon observed effects (extreme, etc.), much like the Beaufort Scale for wind. Sure, our physical conditions (i.e. inner ear) and tolerances may play into our reports, but given enough data from many other observers in same conditions and aircraft, we can identify trends and tendencies.

[Edited 2006-08-04 18:07:18]
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:46 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 15):
I would assume an A343 and A346, sharing much of the same wing design, would be similar, though it would go to reason an A346's additional weight would serve to dampen lighter chop.

I suspect that the A346 might actually be slightly worse due to the greater airframe flexing, being at one end or the other could be quite uncomfotable.


On another point I can't really see how anyone short of professional pilots can comment on one aircrafts ability to handle turbulence over another. They are all pretty good these days.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
okees
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:15 am

I think that the best way to judge which is smoother during turbulence is to ask pilots who have flown both. I don think you will find that many! And to top that, the pilot must have flown each aircraft in similar turbulent conditions. I say fat chance.. but possible. In all cases, ive flown the 330, 340, 777, and 747 many times over the atlantic, and i havnt noticed much difference, simply because 95% of my flights did not have any heavy turbulent parts. So i dont think we are in the position of deciding. Just my opinion.
okees
mobs jakis
 
viasamsy
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:23 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:27 am

As a tip getting your back off the seat's back support really helps to reduce turbulence discomfort. Read this here on a.net and it really works. Well for me at least.
Rebuild New Orleans!!!
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:33 am

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 8):
That should be bad rather than good, as less stiff wings dampen the vibrations.

Really. try this site http://www.askcaptainlim.com/
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting GVWOW (Reply 13):
The most turbulent flight I've been on was a BA 747-300,

Did you mean 200 or 400? BA never had the 300...
Go big or go home
 
gregarious119
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:59 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:55 am

Quoting Truant (Reply 21):
And in my opinion, closely followed by the ERJ-145.

Ya know, I've noticed that too, especially on approach it seemed. During our CVG-ORD-CVG trip, both times we were decending it felt like that thing was going to come apart from it's wings. Clear blue day both ways and we got bounced around the whole time down.
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:24 am

Quoting Halibut (Reply 2):
I have read on a commercial pilot's blog or web page

Like many of you, I've read Captain Lim's page...

Quoting Alphonze (Reply 7):
All these differing opinions show one thing, I think, and that is that unless you ride two different planes through the same patch of turbulence, it's really hard to be objective in deciding whether any one make/model is worse or better than any other.

...and believe that the feeling of the ride is subjective. I won't, however, discount claims that one aircraft handles better than another in rough air.

Any heavy pilots out there can have an opinion on the matter?


777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:30 am

I think it depends. I personally think that the 747-400 and most likely the A380 will have the smoothest rides in the skies during turbulence. I say this because they are the heaviest and it takes more energy to push them about.

However, in contrast, these planes have much greater surface areas on their control surfaces, ie, wings, tail, etc. Thus, with a greater surface area, there should be more room for that "energy" to push it about.

As far as sitting in the front or in the back in turbulence, I prefer the front and I DO think it's lest turbulent there. Make a paper airplane and tie a string to its nose, then turn on a fan and watch how the rear of the aircraft moves and swings a lot, but the front stays relatively in the same place.

In a typical airliner, the control surfaces that produce and direct flight are all located toward the rear of the plane from the nose. The farther back you go, the more the energy bouncing off those surfaces will be felt.

Just my 2 cents.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1458
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:45 am

Quoting ThrottleHold (Reply 3):
I've found both the A330 and A340 to be pretty reasonable in turbulence. The 747 Classic though is a complete dog in even light chop.

 checkmark True, altough i love the 747 Classic's, they behave very bad in turbulences.
I had my smoothest ride in my life on a Swissair A332 ZRH-JFK. That was a great flight.  cloudnine 
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
GEnxPower
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:49 am

Quoting Halibut (Reply 2):
Boeing 777 just has firmer -stronger or stiffer wings than its counterpart . He said he prefers piloting the 777 for that reason

I have not read that page, or Capt Lim's page with this information, but this is contrary to what I understand.

Stiffer wings cause the fuselage to move along with the wings, and it makes the cabin bounce around more in flight. On the other hand, softer wings with lots of wing flex act as damper to turbulence. The wings flex and bend in turbulence but the cabin remains relatively damped. Think of it as softer suspensions on your car giving you smoother ride.

B787 is supposed to be much better at riding turbulences than any others because of their wing flex ability. (Again, I'm no "wing" expert. I work on GEnx engineering design )

Note : Stiffness and Strength of wings are not necessarily directly proportional.
 
GEnxPower
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:54 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 29):
The farther back you go, the more the energy bouncing off those surfaces will be felt.

There are a few "modes" of turbulences. A common one is the see-saw motion. It would be felt most at the back and front of the plane. The theoretical best place for minimal turbulence effects at this mode is to be over the wings, as near to the center of gravity and center of lift.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:56 am

I like a bit of turbulence!

The wildest ride was the approach on America West's 747 into HNL several years back. We arrived in the the midst of a storm and I was seated in the back of the plane. It was something to see us flailing about in the cabin. We lived to tell the tale, however . . . .
 
ncelhr
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:05 am

Over thousands of flight segments flown in all categories of aircraft, I generally have found that smaller aircraft get tossed around more than larger aircraft. Then again, I have always wondered whether it is because smaller aircraft generally fly at lower altitude (short hop segments), where you are likely to be affected more by turbulence? It is also probably because the "dead mass" of the aircraft is higher in higher aircraft, hence more turbulence required to toss it around like smaller ones.
I have also found that the further back you sit on the aircraft, the more noticeable the turbulence is, possibly because of the aircraft's own oscillations.
Now if I was to decide between similarly sized aircraft, I'd think it is impossible to know since there is no way of quantifying turbulence if you're not on the flight deck. How do you know how bad it would be if you were on another aircraft in exactly the same conditions?
 
GVWOW
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:09 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:10 am

This is sort of a side question, but when you say turbulence, does that always refer to the plane going through air pockets and shaking up and down/side to side? Or can it also cover shaking or shuddering, like the god-awful grinding of the Saab 340, or the heavy vibrations that can be experienced when the A330 starts to stall during approach. Me (and many other people) often find bouncy flights fun, but shuddering CRJs make me airsick. I hate Saabs, but I love the A330 and oddly enough don't have a problem with the shaking at the end.

Quoting AA61Hvy (Reply 26):
Did you mean 200 or 400? BA never had the 300

Your right! And the oddest part is... I still have the magazine from that flight that clearly states that British Airways operated the 300 and 400! Strange.
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:29 am

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 25):
Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 8):
That should be bad rather than good, as less stiff wings dampen the vibrations.

Really. try this site http://www.askcaptainlim.com/

At the URL you provided there was nothing relevant, I suppose you more specifically mean this quote:

"You are right to suggest that turbulence affect all airplanes regardless of whether it is a Boeing 777, Airbus 330/340, Boeing 747, etc. I was pointing out the fact in my past FAQs that a Boeing 777 can take turbulence better than an Airbus 330/340 because of their wings construction. The Airbus 330/340 wings are more flexible and hence flex more than a Boeing 777. This flexing appears to cause more turbulence when in fact it should absorb them whereas a Boeing 777 wings are more rigid and hence flex less.
http://www.askcaptainlim.com/asturbulence.htm

it was the intention of the Airbus 330/340 designers to make 'softer' and 'flexier' wings to absorb turbulence better. Somehow, in my opinion, it was probably a wee bit 'softer' than the Boeing 777 so much so that one begins to feel the differences more in the cabin when turbulence is encountered.
http://www.askcaptainlim.com/asB777vsA340issues.htm#Is

So my point is valid. It just seems that the A330/340 in the experience of Cpt. Lim do not seem to behave in the way that would be expected.

Looking at it from a (simplified) engineering perspective, you can compare it to a mass-spring system. You could consider it slightly damed, because a turbulent air mass moving the wing in one direction would have a (tiny) effect on air pressure elsewhere along the wing.

The thing is, the absorption capacity really depends on the resonance frequency of the spring/wing. A nice frequency-response curve is given on pages 28-29 of this NASA study:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...asa.gov/19640011516_1964011516.pdf

So it can't be too stiff, can't be too floppy either (as that would generate aerodynamic flutter and buffeting).
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:49 am

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 27):
Ya know, I've noticed that too, especially on approach it seemed. During our CVG-ORD-CVG trip, both times we were decending it felt like that thing was going to come apart from it's wings. Clear blue day both ways and we got bounced around the whole time down.

so were we on a LH B744 landing in Newark but to say that the 744 is worse in a turbulence than an A340 is to subjective.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:03 am

Quoting LY777 (Thread starter):
The A340-300 has always had a bad reputation during turbulences

Well, this is news to me, and probably Airbus too.

Personally, the main problem with a widebody airbus is getting the speed back if you encounter turbulence unexpectantly. That's a slippery fuselage and advanced wing you have back there.

Catch it in time, and they handle like any other large aircraft.

Having said that, from personal experience, I can recall a BA trip as a passenger, from JFK to LHR the weekend the UK had the worst storms in memory, on a BA 777.

Having made 2 attempted and aborted approaches to LHR (on 23), the decision was made to divert to STN. During the transit, the cabin crew were allowed out of their seats to reassure passengers (it was wild, believe me).

At one point, the turbulence suddenly returned. One of the cabin crew, nowhere near her seat, caught hold of something in the rearmost galley, and I saw her, literally, with her torso horizontal to the floor as the aircraft pitched violently.

I'm not igniting an A v B war by saying this happened on a Boeing. What I am saying is that no-one can realistically say one large aircraft is really better or worse that another in turbulence. It is like the thread about passengers judging landings; no two situatiuons are identical.

I am sure that, had the aircraft in question been an A340, similar would have occurred.

Now had it been a Tristar...................... sometimes we step back as we progress.

Shamu.
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
 
User avatar
ThrottleHold
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:04 am

Quoting GVWOW (Reply 35):
or the heavy vibrations that can be experienced when the A330 starts to stall during approach.

When it starts to stall? Are you sure you don't mean something else?
 
LPLAspotter
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:27 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:05 am

Quoting ThrottleHold (Reply 3):
I've found both the A330 and A340 to be pretty reasonable in turbulence. The 747 Classic though is a complete dog in even light chop.

Man I second that. Flown lots of them through turbulence and they take the cake with the 767

LPLAspotter
Nuke the Gay Wales for Christ
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17085
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:07 am

Quoting Halibut (Reply 2):
I am , by no means an aviation expert . However , I have read on a commercial pilot's blog or web page , that the Boeing 777 just has firmer -stronger or stiffer wings than its counterpart . He said he prefers piloting the 777 for that reason .

The 777 needs stiffer wings since the 4 engines of the 340 enable the wing to be weaker.

Quoting LY777 (Reply 4):
In 1995, I had an AWFUL flight on an AF A340-300, and now, I always try to avoid the A343.However, I would like to try the A346 (I would like to fly LH A346) on condition that it rides better than the A343 during turbulences

So you're basing your boycott of an aircraft type entirely on that one flight? Seems like shaky (haha) grounds to do so. The turbulence is probably more to blame than the aircraft.

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 22):
I suspect that the A346 might actually be slightly worse due to the greater airframe flexing, being at one end or the other could be quite uncomfotable.

The 346 moves the elevators automatically to counteract unwanted pitching and bending.

Quoting GVWOW (Reply 35):
or the heavy vibrations that can be experienced when the A330 starts to stall during approach.

Airliners are not flown that way. They are flown all the way onto the runway sans stall. Moreover, if an FBW Airbus were to approach stall, alpha floor limitations would kick in, increasing thrust.

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 34):
Over thousands of flight segments flown in all categories of aircraft, I generally have found that smaller aircraft get tossed around more than larger aircraft. Then again, I have always wondered whether it is because smaller aircraft generally fly at lower altitude (short hop segments), where you are likely to be affected more by turbulence?

There's a simple explanation for smaller aircraft being more susceptible. They have less mass and are thus easier to move as per Sir Isaac Newton.

[Edited 2006-08-05 00:19:11]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:16 am

Quoting GVWOW (Reply 35):
the heavy vibrations that can be experienced when the A330 starts to stall during approach.

Please tell me which carrier tries to operate like this, and I'll eat my hat.

Can't happen.....simple.

Shamu
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:30 am

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 42):
Please tell me which carrier tries to operate like this, and I'll eat my hat.

In my theory, which could most likely be incorrect, eventually the wing HAS to stall and quit producing lift. This occurs on touchdown or rather, just right before the first wheels (in sequence) touch down. Otherwise the plane would continue to fly all the way down the runway if the wing did not stall. But as I said before, this occurrs right at touchdown.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:48 am

UAL747

I've sent you an IM on this matter.

Regards

Shamu
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8536
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:36 am

This thread and topic are absolute junk.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:51 am

Quoting LY777 (Reply 4):
In 1995, I had an AWFUL flight on an AF A340-300, and now, I always try to avoid the A343.

I've never flown it in turbulence, but it is usually so smooth that you almost don't notice that you're taking off and landing...

I don't think you should try to avoid it because of this... I don't know many better a/c to fly on as a Y pax. (never tried the 332 and 345/346 though)

I had bad turbulence only twice and that was on an A320 and an ATR42, and to me this is not a reason to avoid these types...
When I doubt... go running!
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:05 am

What on earth is this poppycock?

How do you know you're in "heavy chop", if it "feels smooth"?

How do you know, if it "feels rough", that it's because you're on an A343?

Perhaps if you went through the same tubulence at the same place at the same time in a 777 , through some special power of bi-location, you might have lost your dentures.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17085
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:11 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 43):

In my theory, which could most likely be incorrect, eventually the wing HAS to stall and quit producing lift. This occurs on touchdown or rather, just right before the first wheels (in sequence) touch down. Otherwise the plane would continue to fly all the way down the runway if the wing did not stall. But as I said before, this occurrs right at touchdown.


You are, indeed, incorrect (but don't feel bad ). Your scenario would mean the aircraft cannot descend from any altitude without stalling. For the aircraft to sink, the wing simply produces less lift than is needed for level flight. This is not the same thing as a stall. Stall is when airflow separates from the wing surface. This dramatically reduces lift. Incidentally, stalling can occur at any speed.

The wing will of course eventually stall but not until the plane is planted firmly on the runway. Way after touchdown and way too late for the stall to affect anything except the wings unbending.

Having said that, small GA planes often touch down close to stall speed. This is because they are landed "on the back" of the power curve. Doing the same thing in an airliner, with much longer spool up times, would be very dangerous since a go-around becomes dicey. Airliners are landed with much more power and are NEVER stalled. It can also be added that the stall characteristics of most airliners are far from benign.

[Edited 2006-08-05 02:18:16]

[Edited 2006-08-05 02:20:33]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
GVWOW
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:09 am

RE: A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences

Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:00 am

Aha, it was me that posted incorrect information in the first place. I asked a pilot about this, but I'm starting to think he was full of it. He said that "as the plane slows down during approach, the ends of the wings lose lift and become drag" (Still in quotes) "This is called Stalling". He then went to say "The A330's wings are set in a position that causes the inside of the wings to lose lift/Stall before the outside, causing the vibration in the cabin". He didn't elaborate why that setup would be desirable. Do correct me if this is incorrect, I'd really like to solve this!

Apologies for adding all Sorts of nonsense to this thread! Big grin

Who is online