A340-600 Performance Shortfalls

[mutt]

During the thread concerning the Virgin Atlantic cabin crew strike, there was a comment about the performance shortfalls of the A340-600.

Can anyone expand on how severe are these shortfalls?

Thanks

Mutt

[Flip Flop Flyer]

mutt

It seems to be a problem unique to VS, and may have something to do with the heavy seats and other kit they've installed in the forward cabin. This has led to an unfortunate nose-heavy condition, which in turn has had a negative effect on fuel-burn and the amount of cargo that can be carried in the FWD lower-deck.

Had a guy from VS and a lady from LH at a meeting recently, where the VS bloke raised this issue and asked if LH had experienced similar problems. The answer was a resounding "no, we're extremely happy with the performance of the aircraft - in fact it's slightly better than what Airbus promised us".

[Colonel Klink]

I read somewhere the freight penalty was 7 tonnes per flight, is that true?

[rotornut]

Also, I keep reading here and there about the poor climb performance of all the 340 series. Perhaps someone can elaborate on this.

[Joetom]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article1624119.ece

[Brian Abraham]

Install beds down the back as well. Problem fixed. I'm sure the cattle wouldn't mind. :)

Thats where I sit

[Kiwiguy]

The first and business class sections on some A340600s are so heavy that they are pushing the jet’s nose down during flight, which can play havoc with the aerodynamics and potentially endanger passengers and crew.


Ha ha ... they can always offload first class passenger wallets with me. That should ease the problem.

Reminds me about the joke of the captain's wallet exceeding MTOW.


Install beds down the back as well. Problem fixed.


Ha ha... No sorry madam that's not inflight turbulence. That's Ralph Fiennes with our flight attendants.

So at take off the plane is nose heavy and later in the flight it gets tail heavy.

Oh I love this thread ... don't you ?:rolleyes:

[Carmitage]

Re poor climb performance - assuming everything else equal, a four engined aircraft will alway climb more slowly than a twin as it does not need as much excess power in case of engine failure (one engine out on a quad is 25% down vs 50% down on a twin) - Therefore vs the A330 and the 777, I'm sure the A340 is poor. Don't know how it compares vs 747 though.

[divinehover]

The A340-600 has a better power to weight ratio than a B747-400 and therefore climbs better as well. This cannot be said for the A340-200/300 series. Heavy out of Johannesburg (5500') on a hot day can be somewhat unnerving in the 200 or 300.

[PH-SCP]

As a Maastricht Area Controller would say, speaking about a heavy A340/200 climbing away from Heathrow heading east; "It climbs by the bend of the earth"

[Admiral346]

Anybody mentioning A343/342 climb performance when talking about 346 has no clue.
The thing has big,big balls.

Nic

[mutt]

Admiral346,

I'm not talking about the aircrafts ability to climb, but its payload restrictions, the report linked by Joetom is from April2007, does the problem still exist today or did they find a solution?

We are presently chatting to Airbus about getting the aircraft.

Mutt