Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:52 am

Today, I drove by LAX, and I saw an OZ A380 climbing off of runway 24, and it look like it took forever for it to get into the air. Now seeing that slow climb, I started thinking about 747 classic and A343s, and I wonder, which one of the big long range quads, had the worst climb rate, A388s, 747 classic or A343s? I know the updated models of these aircrafts, have a beter climbe rate. Hopefully, the will A380NEO have a good climb rate.
 
User avatar
777222LR
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:19 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:55 am

I think the A343 sorta takes the cake on this, out of the modern airliners.
 
yenne09
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:02 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:59 am

What about the IL-86?
 
audidudi
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:16 am

My vote goes to the A342! And it's spelt "QUAD"!

[Edited 2015-02-19 20:18:12]
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7310
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:33 am

Isn't that an optical illusion? Where the bigger an object is the slower it *appears* to be moving?
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
AR385
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:34 am

I think it depends on the route. On one particular flight FRA-EZE, the LH plane was FULL, as a matter of fact, we had to go back to the gate to unload cargo. We flew at FL280 until The Canary Islands. Well, it maybe was FL290, but for sure one of the two. Y had 6 empty seats, C 1 empty seat and F was full.

As for how long it took us to get there? I think it was about 40 mins. The entire flight we never climbed above FL330, so not very efficient. Burning four engines at that alltitude for that long. IT was a 744.

I´m sure our friend Wilco may help here.
 
spartanmjf
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:31 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:36 am

I would presume (without doing the research) that early versions of the 707/DC8 would be included in this.

I do know that the VC-10 addressed some of the T/O length and climb issues of the early 707/DC8 models.
"Nuts to the man in 21D!"
 
User avatar
FedExFlyerPHL
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 11:15 pm

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:41 am

If you've ever seen an Air Tahiti Nui 343 take off from LAX, you'd wonder if they will make it over the dunes and out to sea.
Home base: SNA, LGB, LAX
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:47 am

Quoting 777222LR (Reply 1):
I think the A343 sorta takes the cake on this, out of the modern airliners.
Quoting FedExFlyerPHL (Reply 7):
If you've ever seen an Air Tahiti Nui 343 take off from LAX, you'd wonder if they will make it over the dunes and out to sea.

The A343 gets a bad rap for this, but it's really undeserved.

IINM, most A343 operators operate with assumed temperature/FLEX takeoffs, to avoid engine wear. If you've got 10,000ft+ of runway, why rev the thing up any more than you have to?

Watch an A343 takeoff out of SXM, from a 7700ft runway, climb/bank past a mountain, and then fly 4200mi to France... and you'll change your mind. It's no 752, but it can hot-rod, if you want it to.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7310
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:50 am

I've seen the IL76 (aka the vodka burner in that one viral video) take off at IAH and that thing took its sweet time getting into the air, same with the AN124.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:51 am

I'd vote for the DC4.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3184
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:01 am

The A340 doesn't climb - it gets into ground effect then relies on the curvature of the Earth...
 Wow!
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21858
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:09 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 5):
As for how long it took us to get there? I think it was about 40 mins. The entire flight we never climbed above FL330, so not very efficient. Burning four engines at that alltitude for that long. IT was a 744.

I took a 744 from SFO to SYD. For that route, the aircraft is weight-limited and is usually near MTOW. It took us a while and was definitely a slow climb, we were about 100 miles off the coast when we hit FL 340. It was also one of the most impressive takeoffs I've ever seen. We were at around 200kt when the wheels left the ground. We used up an awful lot of 28R.

But the slowest climb I ever experienced was an AF A343 from DTW to CDG. Not exactly a challenging flight for the A343, but maybe she was heavy with freight. We got to 5000 or so quickly and then we just seemed to slow to something like 800FPM and just kind of coasted on up to FL 360 or so.

The A380 seemed like a mixed bag. On CDG-SFO (which is a 12 hour trip), we rotated and lifted quickly, but we were over London before we hit our initial cruise, which was 370-380.

But if you really want to see a slow-climbing long-range quad, check out the videos of the IR 707s taking off.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
AR385
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:27 am

Quoting spartanmjf (Reply 6):
I do know that the VC-10 addressed some of the T/O length and climb issues of the early 707/DC8 models.

I maybe wrong, but I recall the VC-10 having issues when the air density changed due to temperature. They discovered this when BOAC took off into Lake Victoria from Entebbe, and once over the lake the plane would suddenly start sinking. I read that somewhere. It happened because at night the air over the lake was warmer than over land.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
It was also one of the most impressive takeoffs I've ever seen. We were at around 200kt when the wheels left the ground. We used up an awful lot of 28R.

This once was too. I don´t know the speed, but it took 1 min and 15 secs to get off the ground. This would have been my longest take off run if I had not been for my 727-100s flights on AeroSur and on LAB out of La Paz.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1059
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:31 am

The slowest takeoff I have experienced by far was A345 taking off from EWR to SIN. Full flight (~186 pax when it was still combination of J/Y+) and probably taking of at MTOW and in fuel saving mode. A343 HKG-AMS was a rocket ship compared with that.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
7673mech
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:10 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:34 am

Of the three it would have to be the 747 classic.
The 330/340 family was the first that could take off and get clearance straight to cruise altitude.
Prior to this aircraft have to use a step clearance. Climb, level off, gain speed, climb, level off - etc.
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:34 am

From personal experience...DC-8-63F at 355,000 pounds (MTOW). Needed about 10,500 feet of runway at sea level. Initial climb about 1,700 fpm - max alt for the first few hours was FL 280.

A max t.o weight DC-10-30 did much better.
 
User avatar
Siren
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:42 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 13):
Quoting spartanmjf (Reply 6):
I do know that the VC-10 addressed some of the T/O length and climb issues of the early 707/DC8 models.

I maybe wrong, but I recall the VC-10 having issues when the air density changed due to temperature. They discovered this when BOAC took off into Lake Victoria from Entebbe, and once over the lake the plane would suddenly start sinking. I read that somewhere. It happened because at night the air over the lake was warmer than over land.

I did a cursory Google search, and the only easy reference I found to this was another Airliners.net thread responding to the crash of a DAS Cargo DC-10 at Entebbe... linked to and quoted below in its entirety: https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eral_aviation/print.main?id=218883

Quote:

Topic: Entebbe Is Known For This Problem
Username: 367-80
Posted 2000-05-01 18:14:49 and read 2186 times.
Southflite,

Your report about the DAS accident at Entebbe reminded me of a story I read in either Airways or Airliners magazine a few years back. Though the story was about the Vickers VC10, a sidebar story noted that BOAC imposed a performance penalty on VC10 operations out of Entebbe after pilots reported a mysterious loss of performance at the airport shortly after V2. Often the aircraft would experience a neutral or even negative rate of climb, which needless to say confounded the airline and worried the flight crew.

Subsequent investigation indicated that the sudden loss of climb was due to Entebbe airport's location on the edge of Lake Victoria. Since one of the airport's runways protrudes on a narrow peninsula into the lake, BOAC found that the lake's water temperature could potentially affect the air density around the portions of the runway surrounded by the lake. Since BOAC operated nighttime departures out of Entebbe, the airline speculated that after a day of Ugandan sunshine, the lake's water retained some thermal energy, causing the air to remain warmer (and hence thinner) at the departure end of the runway than the air at beginning of the aircraft's takeoff roll. As a consequence, the VC10s hit thinner air shortly after V2 resulting in the lost performance. The airline subsequently modified its V1, VR, and V2 calculations for the airport, which seemed to rectify the problem.

Of course, not all operators may be aware of this effect. It wouldn't surprise me if the recent accidents resulted from pilots unwittingly rotating too early, having failed to account for the potential of lost lift over the departure end of the runway. If you're piloting a heavy freighter near MGTOW, furthermore, you may not have enough available envelope to compensate. Just a thought.

--David Earnest
 
AR385
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:46 am

Quoting Siren (Reply 17):
I did a cursory Google search, and the only easy reference I found to this was another Airliners.net thread responding to the crash of a DAS Cargo DC-10 at Entebbe... linked to and quoted below in its entirety: https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...18883

I do remember reading that on the predecessor of what is today Airways magazine. Early 90s probably. Threw them away.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:56 am

There's no question that some of the Soviet quad types (IL-62, IL-76, IL-86) win this one.

Among Western airliners, I'd say 747 classic. They had to operate at very high weights (relative to MTOW) much more often than later, longer-ranged quads, and at very high weights any 747 would best be described as lumbering gradually into the air.

I agree the A340-300 takes too much of a bad rap for this. It's got quite good hot and high performance when necessary.
 
keuleatr72
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:30 am

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:04 am

As for the jet with the slowest rate of climb, the A340-200 should come in in first place.
In the late 90s I lived right under the flightpath many planes took, when they took off in FRA bound for Canada or the US.
Back then I had a scanner und I used to listen to the COLA-Sector of the ATC in Düsseldorf. Usually the flights would call in between FL 160 and FL 200 when they were handed over to Düsseldorf. The A342 of LH usually called in at FL120. There was a fix right on the dutch-german border which had a mandatory crossing altitude of FL280, iirc. Unable to make it at FL280, the A342 were often crossing the fix well below FL280.

I remember an exchange between a rather snippy female controller and an 342 captain:
ATC: "LHXXX, confirm do you have an A330 or an 340?"
LHXXX (little bit confused): "Err, LH doesn´t have any A330. We have an A340-200!"
ATC: "Well then, would you mind firing up the other two engines and try to give me at least 500ft/min.Would be highly appreciated!"

By the way: Does anyone know how many A342 LH operated?
In Putins´ Russia Waldo finds you...
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1974
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:24 am

Just adding another story to the forum, but when I took a 744ER DFW-BNE, the takeoff roll was close to 60 seconds (normally ive counted around 45 seconds max and sometimes 30-35) and it seemed for the first 3 hours or so we were no more than FL100. To me that felt like the plane just couldn't get up any higher till it burned some fuel!
 
LH707330
Posts: 2353
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:01 am

Quoting keuleatr72 (Reply 20):
As for the jet with the slowest rate of climb, the A340-200 should come in in first place.
In the late 90s I lived right under the flightpath many planes took, when they took off in FRA bound for Canada or the US.
Back then I had a scanner und I used to listen to the COLA-Sector of the ATC in Düsseldorf. Usually the flights would call in between FL 160 and FL 200 when they were handed over to Düsseldorf. The A342 of LH usually called in at FL120. There was a fix right on the dutch-german border which had a mandatory crossing altitude of FL280, iirc. Unable to make it at FL280, the A342 were often crossing the fix well below FL280.

I remember an exchange between a rather snippy female controller and an 342 captain:
ATC: "LHXXX, confirm do you have an A330 or an 340?"
LHXXX (little bit confused): "Err, LH doesn´t have any A330. We have an A340-200!"
ATC: "Well then, would you mind firing up the other two engines and try to give me at least 500ft/min.Would be highly appreciated!"

By the way: Does anyone know how many A342 LH operated?

That's a funny story, I've heard similar gags as well. I'd say the 343 would be worse because it weighs the same or more and has more drag because it's longer.

LH operated 6 A342s, D-AIBA-F. D-AIBA was painted in the early *A scheme for a while right before retirement in the early 2000s.
 
ArmitageShanks
Posts: 3780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:30 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:41 pm

Quoting audidudi (Reply 3):
My vote goes to the A342!

I flew on an RJ A342 and I was shocked at how slowly it seemed to climb.
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:11 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 5):
The entire flight we never climbed above FL330

Why? Aircraft weight limited? Better winds at 330 vs the higher levels? Could be several real reasons.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 8):

The A343 gets a bad rap for this, but it's really undeserved.

IINM, most A343 operators operate with assumed temperature/FLEX takeoffs, to avoid engine wear. If you've got 10,000ft+ of runway, why rev the thing up any more than you have to?

Watch an A343 takeoff out of SXM, from a 7700ft runway, climb/bank past a mountain, and then fly 4200mi to France... and you'll change your mind. It's no 752, but it can hot-rod, if you want it to.

Great post. Well,.....except for debunking A.net myth, legend, personal bias..........

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 19):
I agree the A340-300 takes too much of a bad rap for this. It's got quite good hot and high performance when necessary.

"When necessary". Yup!
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5030
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:21 pm

Quoting 7673mech (Reply 15):
Of the three it would have to be the 747 classic.
The 330/340 family was the first that could take off and get clearance straight to cruise altitude.
Prior to this aircraft have to use a step clearance. Climb, level off, gain speed, climb, level off - etc.

***************************************************************************************************************************************

was that the airplane or ATC?? The Pilot contacts Departure control at around 1500' when heading for 5000' . At that time
Center will tell Him/Her to climb to and maintain the initial Cruise Altitude with the intention to climb again later.
And that is also why the Designation "Heavy" The A340 was no more able to climb to their final altitude than the 747 at MGWT.
Especially NOT with the CFM Engines!! Were that the Case they would NOT have needed or Built the A340-500 and A340-600.
Of course the A340 had already been Exposed by that time when a 777 En route climbed over them out of HKG and landed at LHR an hour ahead of them.
Which is why SQ Traded in their A340's for 777's to Boeing. Remeber that??
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:26 pm

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 11):
The A340 doesn't climb - it gets into ground effect then relies on the curvature of the Earth...

I started lurking on Anet in 2006 iirc and I've been seeing this 'joke' since then.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2353
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:06 am

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 26):
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 11):
The A340 doesn't climb - it gets into ground effect then relies on the curvature of the Earth...

I started lurking on Anet in 2006 iirc and I've been seeing this 'joke' since then.

The A340 is the only aircraft with 5 APUs and the only one to suffer a birdstrike from behind.

In all seriousness though, the reason the 343 gets such a bad rap is that it's fully loaded a greater percentage of the time than many other frames, hence the poor climb rate.
 
Rexus
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 4:13 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 27):
The A340 is the only aircraft with 5 APUs and the only one to suffer a birdstrike from behind.
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 11):
The A340 doesn't climb - it gets into ground effect then relies on the curvature of the Earth...
Quoting keuleatr72 (Reply 20):
I remember an exchange between a rather snippy female controller and an 342 captain:
ATC: "LHXXX, confirm do you have an A330 or an 340?"
LHXXX (little bit confused): "Err, LH doesn´t have any A330. We have an A340-200!"
ATC: "Well then, would you mind firing up the other two engines and try to give me at least 500ft/min.Would be highly appreciated!"

Haha, that's so funny! Nice ones.

Apart from the aerodynamic design of the fuselage and especially the wings you can get a rough idea about the climbing performance of an aircraft if you calculate the ratio of MTOW over available engine thrust. For the following values I looked up the MTOW and the thrust of the weakest engine available for each aircraft on wikipedia:

B744: 2.672 N/kg
B748: 2.644 N/kg
A380: 2.456 N/kg
A342: 2.038 N/kg
A343: 2.024 N/kg
A346: 2.828 N/kg

Some twin engine aircraft for comparison:

B77W: 2.913 N/kg
B788: 2.456 N/kg
A333: 2.570 N/kg
A359: 2.792 N/kg

So from the simple thrust/weight perspective as a rough estimation it seems that the A342 and A343 are left behind by the other aircraft with 4 engines.

[Edited 2015-02-20 18:50:35]
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12592
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:14 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 4):
Isn't that an optical illusion? Where the bigger an object is the slower it *appears* to be moving?

Yes, that will contribute to a certain extent. If you've ever stood at the In'n'Out by LAX and had an A380 fly 100 feet over your head on approach to 24R, you know they kind of look like they're just floating along.

Of course, the A380 also has fairly low landing - and probably takeoff - speeds, so that will contribute too.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:24 am

Quoting Rexus (Reply 28):
Haha, that's so funny! Nice ones.

Apart from the aerodynamic design of the fuselage and especially the wings you can get a rough idea about the climbing performance of an aircraft if you calculate the ratio of MTOW over available engine thrust. For the following values I looked up the MTOW and the thrust of the weakest engine available for each aircraft on wikipedia:

B744: 2.672 N/kg
B748: 2.644 N/kg
A380: 2.456 N/kg
A342: 2.038 N/kg
A343: 2.024 N/kg
A346: 2.828 N/kg

Some twin engine aircraft for comparison:

B77W: 2.913 N/kg
B788: 2.456 N/kg
A333: 2.570 N/kg
A359: 2.792 N/kg

So from the simple thrust/weight perspective as a rough estimation it seems that the A342 and A343 are left behind by the other aircraft with 4 engines.

I don't disagree with you but its not quite that simple. Otherwise how do you explain the claimed performance for the 777 8 / 9 which has significantly less thrust than the -W but a much larger wing.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12592
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:20 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):
Otherwise how do you explain the claimed performance for the 777 8 / 9 which has significantly less thrust than the -W but a much larger wing.

Less drag is a big one. After all, climb rate is proportional to excess thrust - that is, how much thrust you can produce minus how much is needed for level, unaccelerated flight. Or, thrust available minus thrust required.

Less drag = less thrust required, all else being equal.

Then if they've lightened up the aircraft (through composites or what-have-you), that also = less thrust required.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3261
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:19 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 19):
Among Western airliners, I'd say 747 classic. They had to operate at very high weights (relative to MTOW) much more often than later, longer-ranged quads, and at very high weights any 747 would best be described as lumbering gradually into the air.

  

Especially the early PW JT9D-3A(Water-injection) powered 747-200 aircraft were under powered, seen the increased MTOW to 351.000 kgs.
Two and a half minutes wet thrust was possible, thereafter during clean up GA thrust (dry) was selected for another 2.5 minutes.
On top of that, the Aircraft Operation Manual adviced us, during further climb out, to reduce the engine wear by applying reduced climb thrust, with a climb rate of 600ft/min or higher.
Only if the climb rate dropped below 600 ft/min full climb thrust was set.
FL 280 was reached sometimes in 40-45 minutes time.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
bluejuice
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:55 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:55 pm

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 9):
I've seen the IL76 (aka the vodka burner in that one viral video) take off at IAH and that thing took its sweet time getting into the air, same with the AN124.

Not IAH but this may be the video you are referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThoZNxy2JZk
Not biased against vacuum flush.
 
dispatchguy
Posts: 629
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:08 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:02 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
The A380 seemed like a mixed bag. On CDG-SFO (which is a 12 hour trip), we rotated and lifted quickly, but we were over London before we hit our initial cruise, which was 370-380.

Depending on routing, you may be altitude limited by ATC to no higher than FL260 until over the UK coming off of CDG and heading for the NATs.

In that case, the altitude limit is ATC-driven, and not airplane driven.
Nobody screws you better than an airline job!
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:13 am

A story some of the more senior controllers talked about is "back in the day" they remember working east departure sectors off Chicago and in middle of a very busy east departure rush off O'Hare they would get what they nicknamed the "St.Louis bomber" which would be a TWA 747 off of STL going over the Atlantic that would STILL be struggling to climb just east of Lake Michigan and would be a huge pain to get through the climbing O'Hare departures. These days I have seen Southwest 737s or cargo 744s level at FL410 by the eastern shore line of a Lake Michigan!! Now that's impressive.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7310
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:50 am

Quoting bluejuice (Reply 33):
Not IAH but this may be the video you are referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThoZN...y2JZk

That's the one.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:47 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 9):
I've seen the IL76 (aka the vodka burner in that one viral video) take off at IAH and that thing took its sweet time getting into the air, same with the AN124.

best video ever of a long take off and the guy filming saying "sheet I cont believe it" (heavy Aussie accent).

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 16):
From personal experience...DC-8-63F at 355,000 pounds (MTOW). Needed about 10,500 feet of runway at sea level. Initial climb about 1,700 fpm - max alt for the first few hours was FL 280.

Holy cow that take off should have taken forever....

Some old Mexicana 722 when taking off from MEX in a 100 degree day could use all the runway and take off like a propeller aircraft.... but I guess the 342, takes the crown on slow climb rate.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:13 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):
I don't disagree with you but its not quite that simple.

This has gone on for years on A.net : thrust-to-weight ratio is just an aspect of climb performance ; one has to factor in the aerodynamics of the whole airframe, and lo ! one major factor is the L/D ratio :
The whole - reduced - equation of the climb is RoC = TAS x (Trrust / Weight - Drag /weight) , or close enough :
RoC = TAS x (Thrust / Weight - Drag / Lift).

Climb performance depends a lot on climb speed : from the IAS = 250 kt below FL 100, the aircraft has to accelerate to its climb IAS schedule. Better to accelerate as quickly enough, so the RoC during acceleration would be 500 ft/min as per ICAO minimums. That's where the A343 gets caught.

There is on the net quite a lot of data - especially from EuroControl - which give a clearer picture of the A343 vs B744 climb performance. The 744 comes behind.

From experience, close to MTOW from CDG to HKG on a 744, we'd be lucky to nail FL 290 as first step.

I did quite a few observer's seat on the A340 and at MTOW, FL 330 was an everyday's occurrence.

Btw, The 742 / 3 were real pigs, but still better than the 741- which could be forgiven as it was the first of a kind.

On another aspect, all these performances are very dependent on cost index, for avery type.
Contrail designer
 
michi
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:18 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:21 am

There is one more thing.

When a plane moves in the air, it is very difficult to judge climb rate (feet per minute, meters per second) from an outside perspective. But it is easy to see the pitch the airplane is flying.

The pitch however is no (direct) indication of climb rate. One plane uses 12° pitch to have 2000fpm climb rate, the other one achieves 3000fpm climb rate with 12° pitch.

So I guess the "optical illusion" part while seeing airplanes take off played a major role.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):

Today, I drove by LAX, and I saw an OZ A380 climbing off of runway 24, and it look like it took forever for it to get into the air.

Takeoff roll has nothing to do with climb rate.

The A380 actually has a very good climb rate when airborne. Even the runway performance is very good.
 
jmchevallier
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:17 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:06 am

The B741 was by large the worst climber, as it was frequently departing at or close to MTOW due to its limited range.
Many Airlines kept these until early 90s, like AF, BA, PA and TW.

Moreover, they were extremely noisy, and airport operators were getting complaints from places quite remote from the departing airport that an heavy aircraft just overflew them at low altitude, or so perceived.
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:26 pm

Quoting jmchevallier (Reply 40):
Many Airlines kept these until early 90s, like AF, BA, PA and TW.

Northwest last 100 wasn't retired until 2000 if my memory serves me correctly. Don't think the JT9D-7A engines in NW 100s were any nosier than the -7F or Q's used in the 200, but like you say, it didn't climb as fast heavy weight so more people heard it.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:43 pm

Why do people make such a fuss about climb rate? It's not very important. And 4-engine types, including the A340, still have a performance advantage where there are terrain issues after takeoff, in the event of an engine failure.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7086
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:32 am

Quoting Rexus (Reply 28):
...I looked up the MTOW and the thrust of the weakest engine available for each aircraft on wikipedia:

B744: 2.672 N/kg
B748: 2.644 N/kg
A380: 2.456 N/kg
A342: 2.038 N/kg
A343: 2.024 N/kg
A346: 2.828 N/kg

Some twin engine aircraft for comparison:

B77W: 2.913 N/kg
B788: 2.456 N/kg
A333: 2.570 N/kg
A359: 2.792 N/kg

So from the simple thrust/weight perspective as a rough estimation it seems that the A342 and A343 are left behind by the other aircraft with 4 engines.

While this is true, it suffers from the fact that hardly did the highest MTOW subtype ever fly with the lowest power engines.

This is difinitely the fact when talking 342/343. The weakest engines were only used on a dozen or two 20+ years old mostly 342 planes with much lower MTOW.

It would be more accurate when comparing planes with engine and MTOW combinations which actually exist.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:54 am

The old 747's (100/200/300's) were pigs until they got up some steam. Take a heavily loaded 742 at Houston on a hot day, man they were pigs. The A340-300 that Lufty brought in were also pigs. The 747-8 isn't much better. A heavy -8 off Anchorage for say HKG or JFK and they're taking 10 miles off the departure just to hit 3,500ft. Once they get some speed on, it climbs alright. Give me a 77F anyday!
Trikes are for kids!
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:37 am

That 77F has to be able to keep climbing with the loss of 50% of it's thrust, not only that it has to meet all obstacle clearance criteria at a reduced power setting if selected.


It HAS to be overpowered, thus the climb rate !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
speedbird128
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:30 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:51 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 42):
Why do people make such a fuss about climb rate? It's not very important.

Indeed.

I have been around the block a little and in my ATC career the worst climber ever was a B744 eastbound out of JNB. Left my radar coverage at around F270 trying to get to F290. That was over 250nm out from JNB, which is already 5558' AMSL. So only had to climb 23 or so thousand feet.

2nd worst was the 727.

Some of the best ever (commercial) was the B74S and A388 on domestic routes... Not forgetting the B762 either.

The A340 I enjoyed - even though it climbed and cruised a little slower, it always got to an initial higher cruise level than the 777/747 gaggle that had to fight over the F270-F310 level bands when facing a 11 or 12 hour flight...

The fastest climber ever (non-military) was a FA7X. Cleared off the bat to F200. Calls me not much later "Approaching F200". Mode C was still on F102 and the radar system calculated climb rate was +99 as it was in excess of 10kfpm. It was a training flight prior to delivery. Must have been fun.
A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
 
User avatar
aerdingus
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:58 pm

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:17 pm

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 46):
The A340 I enjoyed - even though it climbed and cruised a little slower, it always got to an initial higher cruise level than the 777/747 gaggle that had to fight over the F270-F310 level bands when facing a 11 or 12 hour flight...

Oh the 340 bashers will not be pleased with this info...what will they do with their barrage of hairdryer jokes?

 
A306 A313 A319 A320 A321 A333 A346 A359 ATR42 ATR72 B734 B737 B738 B744 B772 B789 C152 MD80 RJ85 S340
 
citationjet
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:28 pm

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 2):
What about the IL-86?

You mean like this??

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



Or the IL-96.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui


The IL AFM must say "full power until you reach piano keys, then rotate".  
Both photos taken at Phuket. Runway 09/27 is 3,000m long (9,843ft).

[Edited 2015-02-26 11:38:14]
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773,788.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21858
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Worst Climbing Long Range Quad?

Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:41 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 27):
The A340 is the only aircraft with 5 APUs and the only one to suffer a birdstrike from behind.

        

She is pretty and sings a lovely song when she takes off, though.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 45):
That 77F has to be able to keep climbing with the loss of 50% of it's thrust, not only that it has to meet all obstacle clearance criteria at a reduced power setting if selected.

So about that, I'm a bit confused by Rexus's post now.

So let's compare the B744 to the B77W (which it replaces). The B77W has a T/W of 2.9 N/kg while the B748 has 2.6 N/kg (I choose these two because they are large modern Boeings with modern aluminum wings and so I consider them more similar than, say, the 788 and the 744). So if the 748 loses an engine on takeoff, it loses ~0.62 N/kg leaving it with about 2N/kg thrust. But if the 77W loses an engine on takeoff, it loses 1.5 N/kg and winds up with 1.4 N/kg on which to fly. I always assumed that the total Engine-Out thrust would be similar for different models. But there is a 25% difference in Engine-Out thrust between the 748 and the 77W.

Is the 748 over-powered for its engine-out requirements?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

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