View Full Version : A340-600 Maiden Flight

24th Apr 2001, 22:23
As the title of this thread suggests, the first flight of Airbus's A340-600 took off today. It is now the worlds longest aircraft at about 240ft (I think).

Virgin is launch customer fo 2002

25th Apr 2001, 01:01
Go to the Airbus site and download the movies! Pretty impressive aircraft!

25th Apr 2001, 14:36
At 240ft I'll bet take-off needs a delicate touch. What's the aft ground clearance on rotation -- and how long before someone smacks the back end?

25th Apr 2001, 14:50
Apparently needs no more of a gentle touch than any other long airliner, nor will it require two stage rotations. However there is a piece of software included, that will reduce rotation rate if the tail is in danger of being "banged in".

25th Apr 2001, 17:01
Expect to see one at the Farnborough Airshow 2002, officials from Airbus are visiting EGLF soon to see if it can cope with the MEgaLongBus.

25th Apr 2001, 18:46
80 yds from front to rear? I hope it doesn't only have loos at the back end http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

Dropp the Pilot
25th Apr 2001, 20:07
Take as many pictures of this sad device as you can, 'cuz as soon as guaranteed performance numbers are released for the 777-200LR are released this 340 will become VERY rare indeed...

Emirates doesn't take delivery of the 340 for eighteen months yet, but they are already trying to flog them!

25th Apr 2001, 20:10
Dropp...Yep there's always one!

25th Apr 2001, 21:06
With reference to AhhhVC813's post, and having now seen the Airbus videos, it did seem to me that there was indeed a two-stage rotation at take-off, or is this just a normal precaution on a first flight?

northern boy
25th Apr 2001, 22:40
I see the Boeing shareholders are back on line.Any more?.

26th Apr 2001, 04:13
240 feet looooooooooooooooooooong

Copied from the A340-600 AFM:

NOTICE A tail strike can occur while parked unmanned on the ramp in a still wind.

26th Apr 2001, 15:40
Sad device eh Dropp? The only sadness I see is in the dire insignificance of your irrelevant posting.

27th Apr 2001, 00:29
Dropp, the airline who uses this aircraft to do the intended job of a 777-200LR would be very stupid indeed, but the one who use a 340-500 to fill that gap, they would be a little more clever........as for the sad device, well, maybe you should get right on the phone to AI and point those silly enineers in the right way, after all what would they know about building a plane? Hilarious.

27th Apr 2001, 23:21
Been in Toulouse today! Seen the 340-600 do touch and go's. Life! I sat at the holding point when it landed. It was about 200m from my aircraft. WHAAAAAW! What a beautifull aircraft! I'm in love...
Seems AI is in a bit of a hurry to get it certified. The testpilots seemed to be working the aircraft pretty hard today. Oh and Dropp, I think it's great you hate the Airbuses, just gives me more of a chance to fly one. Less competition. Wouldn't mind a 777 either though.

28th Apr 2001, 13:26
Still a long way off M0.86 though....

Dropp the Pilot
28th Apr 2001, 14:40
Actually I don't hate Airbuses at all, my related sentiments are more of relief (having abandoned them entirely after 3500 hours on type) and hope (that I never ever have to fly one again).

More to the point, they are a continual source of amusement...for instance, why does Boeing have a bunch of unsellable 340's sitting in their backyard? Did you see any 777's parked in Toulouse?

28th Apr 2001, 20:54
<<for instance, why does Boeing have a bunch of unsellable 340's sitting in their backyard? Did you see any 777's parked in Toulouse? >>

Just shows Boeing's selling tactics! They have to take your "unsellable" 340s in order to shift their products... The better salesman is the one with no surplus stock!

Have flown both A & B - both good products, find it a bit strange that there are those here who seemingly seriously don't appreciate there's room for both companies, and in fact beneficial for some genuine competition that keeps prices down, and innovation high.

28th Apr 2001, 21:47

Mach .86 -v- .83/.84: Big deal.

How about:

10 tonnes an hour -v- 8 tonnes an hour: ?

Really don't see why we should get in a tissy, all this Boeing v Airbus crap is a waste of breath. I've been in bars where it has all got rather heated over this subject.

After all isn't it a Boeing expression 'if it looks good, it is good'

northern boy
28th Apr 2001, 23:09
Well said crew rest. At the end of the day airlines exist to make money.A big fast Boeing is fine if you can fill it up with punters and freight but if you are developing a new route or times are hard reduced fuel burn can mean the difference between profit and loss,and that can mean the difference between having a job and being down the road. Its a question of horses for courses.All this "real men fly Boeings" may make some people feel good about themselves but is totally irrelevant in the real world.