Andre3K wrote:Well you are...We are literally talking about the acceleration aspect here.
Andre3K wrote:And there was me thinking that the job of the jet was to get me on my holidays safely and in a timely fashion, thank god you reminded me its about drag racing.Ok let me make this simple.
No matter what you do or say, if a A340-300 and A340-600 were lined up on tandem runways, in perfect conditions for engine performance. And they are both at max takeoff weight, the -600 will beat the -300 to 100 knots without a doubt.
Andre3K wrote:There is, its called reducing drag but you apparently don't want to listen to thatTHERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THRUST.
Andre3K wrote:They do both, that's why a typhoon has a different looking wing to a lightning.Or are we going to start making fighter jet's with less thrust now because of wing efficiency?
speedbird52 wrote:No, but it appears that some arts of society don't like it when the facts don't agree with their opinions.Has society reached a point where people feel offended over hearing that an airplane doesn't have enough power?
Andre3K wrote:I don't think anybody has argued with that point. The A346 has higher T/W than an A343. Your assumption that that constitutes being underpowered however is what is being arguedAgain that’s been sidestepping the point. I’m sure the majority here I know that flex takeoffs are the norm. But there is no getting around the fact that the A340-300 has less power for its weight than either of the later models. Anyone who would argue against that is just blinded by stupidity(not saying you, just a general statement)
Andre3K wrote:People have spoken on it to say that there is more to being underpowered than a simple ratio of thrust to weight, that fact that you don't want to listen is no ones fault or problem but yours.What i do know is that the thrust to weight ratio is much lower for the -200/300 models over the -500/600.
Are you ever going to speak on that or just keep bringing up things even you have no numbers for?
Andre3K wrote:The A346, it has more thrust, it also has more thrust than a 77X, is that underpowered?Do me a favor, answer this one question. If you put a giant scale behind a A340-300 and an A340-600 and connected them via some cable at an appropriate hard point, which one would pull harder?
Andre3K wrote:You want to compare two different aircraft together which fit your argument of being under/overpowered but ignore other aircraft, is this correct?I am only talking about the difference in T/W of the -200/300 vs the -500/600.
Andre3K wrote:AgreedThe increase in thrust is much higher than the increase in weight.
Andre3K wrote:Many people have talked about it and explained why it is the case and why it does not constitute being underpowered. People have talked and you haven't listened.Let’s talk about that. Can we do that?